These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.

It’s ridiculous that Donald Trump’s immigration proposals — not so much a policy as empty words strung together and repeated — should have propelled him as far as they have. This confounding situation hit peak absurdity on Wednesday.

It started with Mr. Trump’s meeting with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico, in Mexico City. It was surreal because Mr. Trump has spent his entire campaign painting Mexico as a nation of rapists, drug smugglers and trade hustlers who would have to pay for the 2,000-mile border wall that Mr. Trump was going to build. But instead of chastising Mr. Trump, Mr. Peña Nieto treated him like a visiting head of state at a news conference, with side-by-side lecterns and words of deferential mush.

An unusually muted Mr. Trump called Mr. Peña Nieto his friend and said they had not talked about the bill for the wall; Mr. Peña Nieto later disputed that on Twitter, saying he had refused to pay. There was no friction at the photo-op, which allowed the Republican nominee to try on his calm, grown-up voice, avoid offending his nativist base and humiliate Mexico, all at the same time.

Mr. Trump then headed back over the border, shedding his decorum by the time he got to Phoenix.

In a strident speech given over a steady roar of cheers, he restated his brutally simple message: Criminal aliens were roaming our streets by the millions, killing Americans and stealing our jobs, and he’d kick them all out with a new “deportation force,” build the wall and make America safe again.

The speech was a reverie of immigrant-fearing, police-state bluster, with Mr. Trump gushing about building “an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall,” assailing “media elites” and listing his various notions for thwarting evil foreigners. He said the immigration force might deport Hillary Clinton.

Which is what makes Mr. Trump’s decision to speak in Phoenix so perversely appropriate. While Mr. Trump’s plans for a locked-down deportation nation are largely a nativist fantasy, immigrant communities in Arizona have lived with the reality of what the Trump vision leads to: the brutal racial profiling and policing abuses of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a staunch Trump ally, who echoes and inspires Mr. Trump’s vicious talk about immigrants as criminals. As Sheriff Arpaio seeks a seventh term this fall, his opponents are pushing back, with protests and get-out-the-vote campaigns, to stop the sheriff’s re-election.

Arizona, home of Minutemen vigilantes and a powerful grass-roots immigrant-rights movement, has long been a national bellwether on immigration policy. It was a fitting backdrop to Mr. Trump’s hollow proposals, and his relentless lies about the dangers that immigrants pose to the lives of “our American citizens.” Tornadoes are hollow at the center, too, and they do a lot of damage.

They're pouty for the same reason children are: they're weak. Or they're weaker than they once were. An apostate like Trump should've been disposed of ages ago. But we stupid plebs have kept him in it, ignoring our betters. The NYT, or what it represents, is supposed to be stronger than that.

It's because their leadership structure has been handed over to women. That's how women act when they're afraid that they might not get their way. It's a signal to the beta-males that they'd better show up and vote for Hillary, or they won't get invited to come over to crochet and binge watch Murphy Brown.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn’t even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I’ve noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Is that you again Steve? I can't for the life of me understand how this tiny turd is allowed posting status here at the UNZ. Id be willing to wager that tiny is employed by the UNZ. Almost makes a fella yearn for the good old days of the national review.

I’m concerned about your mental health. This obsession with Trump and Hillary is not healthy.

Speaking as someone who values your (primarily humorous) contribution to Mr. Sailer's blog, I ask you to please seek professional help.

Find a doctor to prescribe appropriate anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medication as soon as possible. It is critical that you have sufficient levels of both medications already in your bloodstream on election night. And make sure any guns, rope or sharp objects are not readily available to you.

Man don't you ever have anything else other than your vacuous tripe to offer to any subject? I am fully aware that you leftist dilletanti are unable to grasp the core of a given issue, and that your only possibility is to start flinging insults and shit, but it is just so fucking exausting to be endlessly confronted with the same worn out leftist cliches' and platitudes. You Mr duckie simply have no fucking clue, basta. Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" Society member since 1973, and Detroit born Pro Jazz performer. PS : When I contemplate the horrible damage inflicted on my home town, a one-time world-class metropolis, by the insane Demokrats who have been in charge there for the last fifty years, I wonder who the hell could ever actually vote for these charlatans.

Does the organization you work for actually think trolling Steve Sailer's blog will be effective in getting his readers to stay home or vote for Hillary on Election Day? You are the Tokyo Rose of ISteve. They must pay you more than Ramen Noodles, Subway foot-longs, and a bottomless pot of Hills Bros. (Donut Shop).

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn’t back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August). Those joined three or four Trump hit op/eds from the early morning of the 31st. Every single day, the WashPost is pounding on the guy and to no effect. I suppose they keep liberals that were never going to vote any way but the Hillary way warm and fuzzy, but to what end do they do this? No one reads the WashPost that is going to flip. It’s my old hometown paper, I know how to beat their paywall, so I read it, but they aren’t convincing me of anything except that traffic and Dindu-crime are way up and quality of life is way down in my old hometown. Meanwhile, they don’t touch Hillary’s health, the FBI/Hillary/Huma email/Foundation situation and they only published one piece on the Pervert Anthony Weiner, chastising us for watching the train crash. Even better, as instructive as what the liberals print about Trump is what they do NOT print on Hillary and there’s far more to print on Hillary.

So the NYTimes and WashPost and Chicago Tribune (all of em, really) are losing tens of millions a month and are propped up by Globalist billionaires printing out the DNC/Globalist line for local consumption. Said billionaires are hoping Hillary wins. Suppose she doesn’t, do the billionaires let those papers fold for being useless? If no one is reading your billboard and no one is buying and your product fails, do you keep buying/paying the price for that failed media?

They’re mere hit-piece generators, Gawkers, so to speak. Fishwrap, failed as commercial entities. When do they die out? Without Bezos, WashPost would have been dead 10 years back.

Even if no laymen whatsoever read them they're still useful to give the intellectual class its marching orders; to subsidize the careers of favored writers, editors, etc.; and to originate material for publication elsewhere. Ever notice that they still base a lot of movies on articles from the Dinosaur Media, for instance?

I am sure Petri's humour is of fine quality.
However, there is more than one important editor at the WaPo who never misses a chance to refer to white people as "losers", "uneducated", and any other demeaning attribute/name one may think of.

And, beside this hobby, they share one more feature.

Have you noticed it?
That's why I don't VIEW the WaPo anymore, nor do I the NYT and Financial Times.

As soon as I saw that line in the speech I knew the MSM idiots would make this silly big deal out of it. I am going to tell anybody who regurgitates MSM crap about this speech that they need to read the speech for themselves. It takes five minutes and if they cannot spare that time to learn the reality of Trump's message they shouldn't be voting.

I read that line in Trump's speech, and thought to myself, that is so obviously a joke that even our out-of-control media wouldn't dare try to take it as a serious suggestion: they'd look like complete idiots.

But they did, and they do.

Thank you NY Times Editorial Board, for wearing your hackery on your sleeve.

Remind me again, is he that guy who owns the NY Times, or is that the guy who keeps pm'ing pictures of his el chubby to young girls. I can't tell the two apart, as they seem to have similar political views, leanings and connections.

Slim is about to have his remittance cash cow hit by 2 things.Fewer illegals sending cash for El Norte cuts his bottom line. And also the most obvious way to get Mexico to pay for The Wall is a surcharge on remittances. Funny there is never any discussion about Slim's financial interest in Wild West immigration policies in the MSM.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

I’ve noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I know you’re just trolling, but it’s funny how you flatter the alt-right by claiming that around 40% of the electorate is part of the alt-right.

Tiny Duck is actually pretty brilliant satire. The fact that so many people take the bait and freak out at him shows how perfectly he nails the clueless PC triumphalist mindset. The fact that it's hard to tell that he actually agrees with Sailer and isn't just a PC troll shows just how difficult it is to satirize beliefs that are the exact opposite of common sense.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Your reality is just as false. Seems you’re living someone else’s fantasy, a hallmark of clueless, magical thinking.

Pretending that Trump's satirical and humorous statements should be taken literally has been a standard lefty tactic.

As soon as I saw that line in the speech I knew the MSM idiots would make this silly big deal out of it. I am going to tell anybody who regurgitates MSM crap about this speech that they need to read the speech for themselves. It takes five minutes and if they cannot spare that time to learn the reality of Trump’s message they shouldn’t be voting.

I was at a restaurant last night and the television on the wall in front of me was on CNN. It was all Trump, for more than an hour, and this was BEFORE his speech. The crawler at the bottom kept repeating the line about Mexico not paying for the wall, over and over and over again.

Trump went into the lion’s den by daring to go to Mexico and meet with Nieto. He’s certainly a gutsy guy. The media have really gone into overdrive with their campaign of smear and abuse. This is highlighting the chasm between the mass of Americans and the small effete elite leading us all around by the nose.

Remind me again, is he that guy who owns the NY Times, or is that the guy who keeps pm’ing pictures of his el chubby to young girls. I can’t tell the two apart, as they seem to have similar political views, leanings and connections.

This is why I don’t care what Trump says, and don’t really care what his supporters say about him, either. Reading what people who hate him have to say is so much more fun, in a “your tears are delicious” way.

While Mr. Trump’s plans for a locked-down deportation nation are largely a nativist fantasy, immigrant communities in Arizona have lived with the reality of what the Trump vision leads to: the brutal racial profiling and policing abuses of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a staunch Trump ally, who echoes and inspires Mr. Trump’s vicious talk about immigrants as criminals

I had this fever dream where I hallucinated that all of the illegal crystal meth and heroin and cocaine in the U.S. came in from Mexico. In reality we know that they are merely the physical manifestation of white privilege.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Is that you again Steve? I can’t for the life of me understand how this tiny turd is allowed posting status here at the UNZ. Id be willing to wager that tiny is employed by the UNZ. Almost makes a fella yearn for the good old days of the national review.

I’ve noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I know you're just trolling, but it's funny how you flatter the alt-right by claiming that around 40% of the electorate is part of the alt-right.

Tiny Duck is actually pretty brilliant satire. The fact that so many people take the bait and freak out at him shows how perfectly he nails the clueless PC triumphalist mindset. The fact that it’s hard to tell that he actually agrees with Sailer and isn’t just a PC troll shows just how difficult it is to satirize beliefs that are the exact opposite of common sense.

No, no, it's not. He's less than mediocre, probably the best an average IQ can do. I'd almost guess it's written by a woman since it lacks any cleverness but the obsessive posting here every day on nearly every post tells me it's a man. If you want truly clever satire, check out the Hillary PR Team (@OnMessageForHer), the former Conservative Pundit, parody Twitter account.

And they are burning their rhetorical capital, as well. Say "racist" enough times, and it will become a joke and nothing more than a joke. If calling illegal immigrants "illegal immigrants" is viciously racist rhetoric, then "viciously racist rhetoric" is a compliment.

The lunatic over-reach here is palpable. These fools should have done a deal with Trump. Even if he loses, he wins at this point.

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn't back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August). Those joined three or four Trump hit op/eds from the early morning of the 31st. Every single day, the WashPost is pounding on the guy and to no effect. I suppose they keep liberals that were never going to vote any way but the Hillary way warm and fuzzy, but to what end do they do this? No one reads the WashPost that is going to flip. It's my old hometown paper, I know how to beat their paywall, so I read it, but they aren't convincing me of anything except that traffic and Dindu-crime are way up and quality of life is way down in my old hometown. Meanwhile, they don't touch Hillary's health, the FBI/Hillary/Huma email/Foundation situation and they only published one piece on the Pervert Anthony Weiner, chastising us for watching the train crash. Even better, as instructive as what the liberals print about Trump is what they do NOT print on Hillary and there's far more to print on Hillary.

So the NYTimes and WashPost and Chicago Tribune (all of em, really) are losing tens of millions a month and are propped up by Globalist billionaires printing out the DNC/Globalist line for local consumption. Said billionaires are hoping Hillary wins. Suppose she doesn't, do the billionaires let those papers fold for being useless? If no one is reading your billboard and no one is buying and your product fails, do you keep buying/paying the price for that failed media?

They're mere hit-piece generators, Gawkers, so to speak. Fishwrap, failed as commercial entities. When do they die out? Without Bezos, WashPost would have been dead 10 years back.

Without Bezos, WashPost would have been dead 10 years back.

With Trump, maybe Amazon’s offshore tax shenanigans are wound up with back taxes paid. Suddenly the Wapo looks cheap.

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn't back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August). Those joined three or four Trump hit op/eds from the early morning of the 31st. Every single day, the WashPost is pounding on the guy and to no effect. I suppose they keep liberals that were never going to vote any way but the Hillary way warm and fuzzy, but to what end do they do this? No one reads the WashPost that is going to flip. It's my old hometown paper, I know how to beat their paywall, so I read it, but they aren't convincing me of anything except that traffic and Dindu-crime are way up and quality of life is way down in my old hometown. Meanwhile, they don't touch Hillary's health, the FBI/Hillary/Huma email/Foundation situation and they only published one piece on the Pervert Anthony Weiner, chastising us for watching the train crash. Even better, as instructive as what the liberals print about Trump is what they do NOT print on Hillary and there's far more to print on Hillary.

So the NYTimes and WashPost and Chicago Tribune (all of em, really) are losing tens of millions a month and are propped up by Globalist billionaires printing out the DNC/Globalist line for local consumption. Said billionaires are hoping Hillary wins. Suppose she doesn't, do the billionaires let those papers fold for being useless? If no one is reading your billboard and no one is buying and your product fails, do you keep buying/paying the price for that failed media?

They're mere hit-piece generators, Gawkers, so to speak. Fishwrap, failed as commercial entities. When do they die out? Without Bezos, WashPost would have been dead 10 years back.

I am sure Petri's humour is of fine quality.
However, there is more than one important editor at the WaPo who never misses a chance to refer to white people as "losers", "uneducated", and any other demeaning attribute/name one may think of.

I just read it to keep up with the dark side and watch the liberal terror and suffering. They're positively marinaded in Trump hit pieces. Back in the 50s and 60s, my Pop used to read it every morning to see what the press knew of the latest shenanigans in Vietnam and of course, the politics of the day. We had the Post, Washington Daily News and the Washington Evening Star hitting the stoop every day. I even delivered it for a year. They're all gone except the Post and it's walking dead. No subscribers, no advertisers. Only Bezos piling in 60 million/month to keep it running. He even bought that loser new offices.

I'm a DC area guy (whose first job was delivering the WashPo starting in 9th grade) so read the WashPo sports page online. I'm a straight ticket DC sports fan: Skins, Nats, Caps, Wiz/Bullets and they have great coverage.

The Post tries to limit the number of articles you can read, but all you have to do to get around that is delete their cookies from your browser whenever you get the popup "this is your last free article, but you can subscribe and get unlimited blah blah".

I get emails from them periodically asking me to subscribe. A friend asked me once why I didn't just pony up whatever the subscription costs rather than go to the (minor) hassle of deleting their cookies? I said "if there's a chance that my $79 or whatever keeps them from going out of business and all their miserable left-wing editorial board from losing their jobs for even an extra 5 seconds...I can't take that risk"

My wife is originally from Russia so I get bombarded with Russian media and I would have to say that most Russkies are quite proud of Putin. He is a very smart and vigorous man. By American standards he is overexposed by a country mile but he is constantly meeting with various mayors, governors, generals, etc. He is always giving awards and meeting with students. Putin is at the inauguration of a bridge, Putin is at the groundbreaking of a new this or that. Like Trump, they guy lives on a plane and he is constantly visiting far flung places inside of Russia and outside to let his constituents know he is doing his job.

Now contrast that with Hillary. She is an old woman that gets easily tired. She limits who she sees to friendly audiences. Everything she does is behind closed doors. Perception matters. Hillary will be a ruler not a leader.

Everyone knows Bill will be running things behind the scenes. People will vote Clinton less because of her character and abilities than out of nostalgia for the 1990s. (Similarly, people voted for Bush Jr. in 2000 because they were nostalgic for the Reagan era, and reckoned the same folks would be running things under Bush.)

Your post of yesterday in which you show Slim’s net worth declining as Nieto demanded, got and enforced anti-monopoly legislation is evidence that many of the most lavish individual fortunes are built on monopolies, cartels, crony capitalism, or some bad business practices.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Tiny/Sick Duck, you had previously claimed that Trump could not win the Republican nomination. How did that work out?

What is intriguing is the number of “elites” that are actually hoping, plotting, and taking action to see the end of the United States as a nation. They seem to prefer anti-democratic, continental-wide trading associations run by technocrats … like the EU. What is sadder is the number of Federal officials who took an oath to protect the Constitution, and within that, the interests and national identity of the United States … and yet they repeatedly violate that oath and act against the interests of the United States and its citizens as they genuflect to the globalization agenda. I would mark Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton as two of these culprits.

Who are these people … and how did they get there? How do they stay there?

I'm used to the Establishment winning. Why do their tactics have such a pouty, impotent quality to them? It's like history is about to pass them by.

They’re pouty for the same reason children are: they’re weak. Or they’re weaker than they once were. An apostate like Trump should’ve been disposed of ages ago. But we stupid plebs have kept him in it, ignoring our betters. The NYT, or what it represents, is supposed to be stronger than that.

No statistics, no reference to studies (however dubious), no analysis, no measured tone. Just invective and name-calling.

Even allowing that this is an opinion piece — and they are entitled to their opinion — the fact that every course of this feast is just huge helpings of sophomoric adjectives, and nothing else at all, is very telling.

The best part is how they put American citizens in quotes: “[O]ur American citizens.” Very, very telling. These people don’t take immigration or citizenship status seriously at all.

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn't back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August). Those joined three or four Trump hit op/eds from the early morning of the 31st. Every single day, the WashPost is pounding on the guy and to no effect. I suppose they keep liberals that were never going to vote any way but the Hillary way warm and fuzzy, but to what end do they do this? No one reads the WashPost that is going to flip. It's my old hometown paper, I know how to beat their paywall, so I read it, but they aren't convincing me of anything except that traffic and Dindu-crime are way up and quality of life is way down in my old hometown. Meanwhile, they don't touch Hillary's health, the FBI/Hillary/Huma email/Foundation situation and they only published one piece on the Pervert Anthony Weiner, chastising us for watching the train crash. Even better, as instructive as what the liberals print about Trump is what they do NOT print on Hillary and there's far more to print on Hillary.

So the NYTimes and WashPost and Chicago Tribune (all of em, really) are losing tens of millions a month and are propped up by Globalist billionaires printing out the DNC/Globalist line for local consumption. Said billionaires are hoping Hillary wins. Suppose she doesn't, do the billionaires let those papers fold for being useless? If no one is reading your billboard and no one is buying and your product fails, do you keep buying/paying the price for that failed media?

They're mere hit-piece generators, Gawkers, so to speak. Fishwrap, failed as commercial entities. When do they die out? Without Bezos, WashPost would have been dead 10 years back.

Even if no laymen whatsoever read them they’re still useful to give the intellectual class its marching orders; to subsidize the careers of favored writers, editors, etc.; and to originate material for publication elsewhere. Ever notice that they still base a lot of movies on articles from the Dinosaur Media, for instance?

The most surprising thing to me was the comments on that NYT editorial – there are way fewer pro-Trump comments than you would have seen six months ago. Also, earlier in the year the anti-Trump “NYT Picks” were always completely different from the typically pro-Trump “Reader Picks”. Now, all the picks are anti-Trump.

One pro-Trump comment that “there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US – that’s 3% of the population” attracted a dozen virulent anti-Trump replies. They’re just piling on now.

This is an interesting observation. Probably telling. This was a good speech but Trump squandered too much in the last few months. He's lost a lot of support maybe. An alternative explanation is that the NYT is so biased they've lost readers.

Illegal immigration is not our most serious threat. Our country is built upon cultural diversity and a welcoming stance to those who value freedom and rule of law. People like me--of white European descent--have no special claim upon this land. It was never ours and demographic projections indicate it will be less-and-less ours each year. I am more grateful than ever for the presence of all colors and cultures and I am absolutely counting on people of color to again save us from ourselves. We cannot let this hateful, vacuous, dangerous man become president.

The Main Slime Media refuses to provide shots of the crowds at Trump rallies now, limiting themselves of shots of him at the podium and making claims about how everyone sensitive is shaking in their boots about what he is saying:

I'm used to the Establishment winning. Why do their tactics have such a pouty, impotent quality to them? It's like history is about to pass them by.

It’s because their leadership structure has been handed over to women. That’s how women act when they’re afraid that they might not get their way. It’s a signal to the beta-males that they’d better show up and vote for Hillary, or they won’t get invited to come over to crochet and binge watch Murphy Brown.

The NYT Editorial board tears provides great fun, but I’m hoping for a full breakdown if Trump wins. Can you imagine the news coverage the next day? Calls for a recount, revolution, moving to Canada…. all of my dreams would come true.

If it is anything like Brexit it will be hilarious. The media will predict total immediate disaster, in the hope of making it happen. Then they will talk of impeachment. After no disaster happens and the deportations proceed smoothly they will occasionally lash out, plot in the shadows before, and I do jot know yet, slowly vanishing?

A friend and I are already designing phony airline vouchers for international flights to give to the local moonbats the day after the election. The smooth, refreshing taste of schadenfreude will be more satisfying than a tropical weekend with a deaf-mute Sports Illustrated swimsuit model!

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Dear M. Le Petit Canard:

I’m concerned about your mental health. This obsession with Trump and Hillary is not healthy.

Speaking as someone who values your (primarily humorous) contribution to Mr. Sailer’s blog, I ask you to please seek professional help.

Find a doctor to prescribe appropriate anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medication as soon as possible. It is critical that you have sufficient levels of both medications already in your bloodstream on election night. And make sure any guns, rope or sharp objects are not readily available to you.

I guess the media will stop promoting the idea that Trump is softening his stance. This has to be the worst thing for them. They thought that they could separate Trump from his supporters if they could convince them that Trump was softening. After yesterday there is no chance of that. Trump’s website crashed as people scrambled to donate money by the August 31 deadline.

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn't back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August). Those joined three or four Trump hit op/eds from the early morning of the 31st. Every single day, the WashPost is pounding on the guy and to no effect. I suppose they keep liberals that were never going to vote any way but the Hillary way warm and fuzzy, but to what end do they do this? No one reads the WashPost that is going to flip. It's my old hometown paper, I know how to beat their paywall, so I read it, but they aren't convincing me of anything except that traffic and Dindu-crime are way up and quality of life is way down in my old hometown. Meanwhile, they don't touch Hillary's health, the FBI/Hillary/Huma email/Foundation situation and they only published one piece on the Pervert Anthony Weiner, chastising us for watching the train crash. Even better, as instructive as what the liberals print about Trump is what they do NOT print on Hillary and there's far more to print on Hillary.

So the NYTimes and WashPost and Chicago Tribune (all of em, really) are losing tens of millions a month and are propped up by Globalist billionaires printing out the DNC/Globalist line for local consumption. Said billionaires are hoping Hillary wins. Suppose she doesn't, do the billionaires let those papers fold for being useless? If no one is reading your billboard and no one is buying and your product fails, do you keep buying/paying the price for that failed media?

They're mere hit-piece generators, Gawkers, so to speak. Fishwrap, failed as commercial entities. When do they die out? Without Bezos, WashPost would have been dead 10 years back.

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn't back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August). Those joined three or four Trump hit op/eds from the early morning of the 31st. Every single day, the WashPost is pounding on the guy and to no effect. I suppose they keep liberals that were never going to vote any way but the Hillary way warm and fuzzy, but to what end do they do this? No one reads the WashPost that is going to flip. It's my old hometown paper, I know how to beat their paywall, so I read it, but they aren't convincing me of anything except that traffic and Dindu-crime are way up and quality of life is way down in my old hometown. Meanwhile, they don't touch Hillary's health, the FBI/Hillary/Huma email/Foundation situation and they only published one piece on the Pervert Anthony Weiner, chastising us for watching the train crash. Even better, as instructive as what the liberals print about Trump is what they do NOT print on Hillary and there's far more to print on Hillary.

So the NYTimes and WashPost and Chicago Tribune (all of em, really) are losing tens of millions a month and are propped up by Globalist billionaires printing out the DNC/Globalist line for local consumption. Said billionaires are hoping Hillary wins. Suppose she doesn't, do the billionaires let those papers fold for being useless? If no one is reading your billboard and no one is buying and your product fails, do you keep buying/paying the price for that failed media?

They're mere hit-piece generators, Gawkers, so to speak. Fishwrap, failed as commercial entities. When do they die out? Without Bezos, WashPost would have been dead 10 years back.

I am sure Petri’s humour is of fine quality.
However, there is more than one important editor at the WaPo who never misses a chance to refer to white people as “losers”, “uneducated”, and any other demeaning attribute/name one may think of.

And, beside this hobby, they share one more feature.

Have you noticed it?
That’s why I don’t VIEW the WaPo anymore, nor do I the NYT and Financial Times.

I am sure Petri’s humour is of fine quality.
However, there is more than one important editor at the WaPo who never misses a chance to refer to white people as “losers”, “uneducated”, and any other demeaning attribute/name one may think of.

I just read it to keep up with the dark side and watch the liberal terror and suffering. They’re positively marinaded in Trump hit pieces. Back in the 50s and 60s, my Pop used to read it every morning to see what the press knew of the latest shenanigans in Vietnam and of course, the politics of the day. We had the Post, Washington Daily News and the Washington Evening Star hitting the stoop every day. I even delivered it for a year. They’re all gone except the Post and it’s walking dead. No subscribers, no advertisers. Only Bezos piling in 60 million/month to keep it running. He even bought that loser new offices.

Besides living rent free in our Gay Mulatto president’s head, Trump is also free loading in Little Duck’s and the Hebrew media as well. As the Hildabeast continues to flounder, it’s only going to get worse….this is going to be an interesting two months.

Their stance is open borders, which ultimately implies no states, just world government. Not that long ago one would have been called a nut if one claimed these elitists were pushing for world government, now these same elitists are calling anyone a nut if you don't adhere to their borderless world. Having no borders and just one world state basically means that immigration does not even exist in the way you are asking.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

It must suck to be a Lib like you, being forced into a position of defending a treasonous criminal like
Hitlery.

I think the survival of the current liberal house organs may be at stake in this race. As another commenter pointed out, they are all losing millions but a few billionaire globalists have been propping them up in order to influence elections. If Trump wins, some of the money men might decide the investment isn’t worth it. Wash. Post, NY Times etc. would already be shut down if they were treated as normal business enterprises. Maybe some of the anti-Trump fury comes from the realization they have to prove their worth to their masters or it’s curtains.

I just read it to keep up with the dark side and watch the liberal terror and suffering. They're positively marinaded in Trump hit pieces. Back in the 50s and 60s, my Pop used to read it every morning to see what the press knew of the latest shenanigans in Vietnam and of course, the politics of the day. We had the Post, Washington Daily News and the Washington Evening Star hitting the stoop every day. I even delivered it for a year. They're all gone except the Post and it's walking dead. No subscribers, no advertisers. Only Bezos piling in 60 million/month to keep it running. He even bought that loser new offices.

WaPo not making money for Bezos ain’t no thing. He owns it as a plaything and for the prestige.

It’s as if some other equally rich man bought a yacht. No one expects the yacht to make money do they? 😉

Surely the point of owning any media outlet is to influence opinion, policy etc?

But if it can make money or at least break even so much the better. If one owns an outlet thats hemorrhaging money thats probably a sign that its simply not reaching enough eyes/ears anymore. And thus increasingly failing in it's core purpose.

Steve, please tell me you caught Trump’s crude runaround on the eleven million illegals in this speech and thus his leaving the door open for functional amnesty.

In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: “Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second”. All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

The usual amnesty pitch is "legalize first, then we'll enforce". Btw, the amnesty supporters never get around to explaining what in "enforcement" we don't already have? What would be to stop them from just ignoring those laws too, as they do the ones already on the books?

Trump's is in the correct order - start punishing employers for hiring illegals and many of them will leave on their own.

All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

I think this is missing the point. The gist, as he puts in his speech, is that if e-verify, no benefits/public services for illegals…In essence following the current existing laws are actually followed and enforced, then no “deportation” is necessary. It will simply happen. I apologize for not having a block quote from the speech, but I am feeling very lazy.

As Trump gains ascendence over the Hildebeast I've been noticing more false flag operations like this post. The general form is always the same. The poster's pretense is a desire for border control and real immigration and naturalization reform. They then go on to suggest against all available evidence that Trump secretly does not care about these things or even opposes them. The ulterior message is, "Don't vote for Trump". But this really reduces to the more fundamental message: "Do not oppose the elites. Do your bit to make Hillary Rodham Clinton our next President."

This seems to be a new tactic devised by our elites, who are gradually becoming aware that the meretricious mendacity of the MSM is not sufficient to win this election. They are now trying to undermine support for Trump in more deviously underhanded ways.

For those who have been suborned by this propaganda, I can only suggest that they read Trump's most recent major speech on border control, immigration, and naturalization; compare it with all his past opinions on these issues; and realize that he is truly their best choice for President. If this is not sufficient, read the Hildabeast's opinions and consider the horrors that would follow if she were to gain the White House.

Slim is about to have his remittance cash cow hit by 2 things.Fewer illegals sending cash for El Norte cuts his bottom line. And also the most obvious way to get Mexico to pay for The Wall is a surcharge on remittances. Funny there is never any discussion about Slim’s financial interest in Wild West immigration policies in the MSM.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Man don’t you ever have anything else other than your vacuous tripe to offer to any subject? I am fully aware that you leftist dilletanti are unable to grasp the core of a given issue, and that your only possibility is to start flinging insults and shit, but it is just so fucking exausting to be endlessly confronted with the same worn out leftist cliches’ and platitudes. You Mr duckie simply have no fucking clue, basta. Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” Society member since 1973, and Detroit born Pro Jazz performer. PS : When I contemplate the horrible damage inflicted on my home town, a one-time world-class metropolis, by the insane Demokrats who have been in charge there for the last fifty years, I wonder who the hell could ever actually vote for these charlatans.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

I live on planet earth.

I live in the Unites Sates in North America, now suffering a Zika plague in South Florida.

Pretty ironic: a political scientist, self-described “gender non-conforming,* queer,” a leftist pro-migrant activist, founding director of a “Deportation Research Clinic” and “scholar and critic of the militarization of political science,” opposes successfully the appointment of a retired army general to head the new Buffett Global Studies Institute at Northwestern, pissing off the dean and some faculty, who care very much for his “excellent connections in the Department of Defense and State Department, not to mention China.” She has been banned in retaliation (so she claims plausibly) from contact with students, including those not enrolled at Northwestern, and from the Northwestern campus, including her office and the libraries, as faculty is allegedly “feeling unsafe” around her. She is also being subjected to a psychiatric exam.

What is intriguing is the number of "elites" that are actually hoping, plotting, and taking action to see the end of the United States as a nation. They seem to prefer anti-democratic, continental-wide trading associations run by technocrats ... like the EU. What is sadder is the number of Federal officials who took an oath to protect the Constitution, and within that, the interests and national identity of the United States ... and yet they repeatedly violate that oath and act against the interests of the United States and its citizens as they genuflect to the globalization agenda. I would mark Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton as two of these culprits.

Who are these people ... and how did they get there? How do they stay there?

Oh please do stop obsessing about the US Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t address racial realities of things like an all out third world, Islamic invasion of the West.

Rhodesia Zimbabwe also had a decent constitution, lot of good it did for White farmers.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Pretending that Trump's satirical and humorous statements should be taken literally has been a standard lefty tactic.

“He said the immigration force might deport Hillary Clinton.”

I read that line in Trump’s speech, and thought to myself, that is so obviously a joke that even our out-of-control media wouldn’t dare try to take it as a serious suggestion: they’d look like complete idiots.

But they did, and they do.

Thank you NY Times Editorial Board, for wearing your hackery on your sleeve.

Man don't you ever have anything else other than your vacuous tripe to offer to any subject? I am fully aware that you leftist dilletanti are unable to grasp the core of a given issue, and that your only possibility is to start flinging insults and shit, but it is just so fucking exausting to be endlessly confronted with the same worn out leftist cliches' and platitudes. You Mr duckie simply have no fucking clue, basta. Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" Society member since 1973, and Detroit born Pro Jazz performer. PS : When I contemplate the horrible damage inflicted on my home town, a one-time world-class metropolis, by the insane Demokrats who have been in charge there for the last fifty years, I wonder who the hell could ever actually vote for these charlatans.

What sort of low-grade moron brags about being a Mensa inductee, an organization with lower standards for membership than even the jazz “profession”?

I'm serious. Is there any limit on the number of immigrants for them? Do they ever mention ranking potential immigrants based on skills/education?

The NYT and WaPo - and Hillary - always rant and rave about Trump's immigration stance without ever giving any specifics to what they want. Yet, no one seems to notice.

Their stance is open borders, which ultimately implies no states, just world government. Not that long ago one would have been called a nut if one claimed these elitists were pushing for world government, now these same elitists are calling anyone a nut if you don’t adhere to their borderless world. Having no borders and just one world state basically means that immigration does not even exist in the way you are asking.

And they are burning their rhetorical capital, as well. Say “racist” enough times, and it will become a joke and nothing more than a joke. If calling illegal immigrants “illegal immigrants” is viciously racist rhetoric, then “viciously racist rhetoric” is a compliment.

The lunatic over-reach here is palpable. These fools should have done a deal with Trump. Even if he loses, he wins at this point.

Trump hit an immigration home run yesterday. More so due to the gasket-blowing response. I find it hard to believe that college educated voters aren’t chafing at this insult to the intelligence treatment of their readership.

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that it sure looks like David Duke is the Al Sharpton of (purported) Trump supporters? No single individual is more responsible than Sharpton for the downfall of David Dinkins, followed by a quarter century of Republican NYC mayors.

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that it sure looks like David Duke is the Al Sharpton of (purported) Trump supporters? No single individual is more responsible than Sharpton for the downfall of David Dinkins, followed by a quarter century of Republican NYC mayors.

It was only two mayors, Guiliani was considerably to the left of the National Republican party and Bloomberg was even further left and never a serious member to begin with. Bloomberg also left the party while he was still mayor. They were followed about a mayor in line with what Sharpton wants.

It blows my mind that people are outraged at the most mild immigration limits of US, Australia, Canada, and every last nation of Europe, but completely indifferent to the most extreme immigration limits of the rest of the world.

Japan openly asserts it’s right to remain a homogeneous single ethnicity nation state. The Arab gulf states do the same. And of course Israel. To be fair, expectations on mostly white secular/Christian Russia are low as well.

The NYT Editorial board tears provides great fun, but I'm hoping for a full breakdown if Trump wins. Can you imagine the news coverage the next day? Calls for a recount, revolution, moving to Canada.... all of my dreams would come true.

If it is anything like Brexit it will be hilarious. The media will predict total immediate disaster, in the hope of making it happen. Then they will talk of impeachment. After no disaster happens and the deportations proceed smoothly they will occasionally lash out, plot in the shadows before, and I do jot know yet, slowly vanishing?

I’m a DC area guy (whose first job was delivering the WashPo starting in 9th grade) so read the WashPo sports page online. I’m a straight ticket DC sports fan: Skins, Nats, Caps, Wiz/Bullets and they have great coverage.

The Post tries to limit the number of articles you can read, but all you have to do to get around that is delete their cookies from your browser whenever you get the popup “this is your last free article, but you can subscribe and get unlimited blah blah”.

I get emails from them periodically asking me to subscribe. A friend asked me once why I didn’t just pony up whatever the subscription costs rather than go to the (minor) hassle of deleting their cookies? I said “if there’s a chance that my $79 or whatever keeps them from going out of business and all their miserable left-wing editorial board from losing their jobs for even an extra 5 seconds…I can’t take that risk”

WaPo not making money for Bezos ain't no thing. He owns it as a plaything and for the prestige.

It's as if some other equally rich man bought a yacht. No one expects the yacht to make money do they? ;)

Surely the point of owning any media outlet is to influence opinion, policy etc?

But if it can make money or at least break even so much the better. If one owns an outlet thats hemorrhaging money thats probably a sign that its simply not reaching enough eyes/ears anymore. And thus increasingly failing in it’s core purpose.

For a guy of 100% pure Nordic stock; a blond blue-eyed six-footer of Lutheran German and Scots Presbyterian background, Trump must have the greatest chutzpah of all time. The brazen culturally semito-levantine New York style, synthesized with an urgent will to preserve hearth and home for the people, is possibly unique?

I’m fascinated that by the current year, it takes a billionaire playboy bullsh*ter actually to save America and her posterity.

There is no surer sign of desperation that even the prestige media has devolved to the Immigration equivalent of the mindless cliche "Because otherwise the terrorists will win."

Because otherwise David Duke will win:

https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/771178671465832452

Trump hit an immigration home run yesterday. More so due to the gasket-blowing response. I find it hard to believe that college educated voters aren't chafing at this insult to the intelligence treatment of their readership.

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that it sure looks like David Duke is the Al Sharpton of (purported) Trump supporters? No single individual is more responsible than Sharpton for the downfall of David Dinkins, followed by a quarter century of Republican NYC mayors.

“Because otherwise the terrorists will win.”

Absurd isn’t it. So the [insert name of ethnic group] terrorists want the borders closed and all [insert name of same ethnic group] deported?

Steve, please tell me you caught Trump’s crude runaround on the eleven million illegals in this speech and thus his leaving the door open for functional amnesty.

In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQsr9196cu0&t=78m48s

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: "Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second". All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

Steve, please tell me you caught Trump’s crude runaround on the eleven million illegals in this speech and thus his leaving the door open for functional amnesty.

In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQsr9196cu0&t=78m48s

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: "Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second". All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

The usual amnesty pitch is “legalize first, then we’ll enforce”. Btw, the amnesty supporters never get around to explaining what in “enforcement” we don’t already have? What would be to stop them from just ignoring those laws too, as they do the ones already on the books?

Trump’s is in the correct order – start punishing employers for hiring illegals and many of them will leave on their own.

Steve, please tell me you caught Trump’s crude runaround on the eleven million illegals in this speech and thus his leaving the door open for functional amnesty.

In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQsr9196cu0&t=78m48s

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: "Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second". All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

There is no surer sign of desperation that even the prestige media has devolved to the Immigration equivalent of the mindless cliche "Because otherwise the terrorists will win."

Because otherwise David Duke will win:

https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/771178671465832452

Trump hit an immigration home run yesterday. More so due to the gasket-blowing response. I find it hard to believe that college educated voters aren't chafing at this insult to the intelligence treatment of their readership.

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that it sure looks like David Duke is the Al Sharpton of (purported) Trump supporters? No single individual is more responsible than Sharpton for the downfall of David Dinkins, followed by a quarter century of Republican NYC mayors.

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that it sure looks like David Duke is the Al Sharpton of (purported) Trump supporters? No single individual is more responsible than Sharpton for the downfall of David Dinkins, followed by a quarter century of Republican NYC mayors.

It was only two mayors, Guiliani was considerably to the left of the National Republican party and Bloomberg was even further left and never a serious member to begin with. Bloomberg also left the party while he was still mayor. They were followed about a mayor in line with what Sharpton wants.

Ovverall today’s been quite a bad day for the immigrationists.
What with British PM Theresa May insisting that brexit means brexit, good UK economic indicators showing that the Chicken Little ghost stories of the remainiacs were nothing but a bunch of bull, and now an unrepentant Donald Trump firing on all cylinders.

But, alas, Medusa like the immigrationists will be back with their foul blaspheming mouths and damned lies. The lies and deceit will only redouble. I can almost smell the stink of fresh new laid bullshit leaking from under the portals of The Economist’s (s)wanky elitist St James’s Park center of pestilence.

Trump continues to promise amnesty for the eleven million nonviolent illegals at a later date:

“You’re going to be asked this, so I might as well ask it,” Ingraham said to Trump during a radio interview. “The line last week [was] you were softening on immigration, then you come out with a very specific, very pro-enforcement plan last night. Where’s the softening?”
Passing on the chance to disavow the prior “softening” narrative, Trump insisted instead, “Oh, there’s softening. Look, we do it in a very humane way, and we’re going to see with the people that are in the country. Obviously I want to get the gang members out, the drug peddlers out, I want to get the drug dealers out. We’ve got a lot of people in this country that you can’t have, and those people we’ll get out.”
“And then we’re going to make a decision at a later date once everything is stabilized,” Trump continued. “I think you’re going to see there’s really quite a bit of softening.”

There is no surer sign of desperation that even the prestige media has devolved to the Immigration equivalent of the mindless cliche "Because otherwise the terrorists will win."

Because otherwise David Duke will win:

https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/771178671465832452

Trump hit an immigration home run yesterday. More so due to the gasket-blowing response. I find it hard to believe that college educated voters aren't chafing at this insult to the intelligence treatment of their readership.

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that it sure looks like David Duke is the Al Sharpton of (purported) Trump supporters? No single individual is more responsible than Sharpton for the downfall of David Dinkins, followed by a quarter century of Republican NYC mayors.

I think Duke is just an attention whore, he knows that if he says good things about Trump the media will lap it up.

I think he is as much a supporter of Hillary as Bill Kristol or Jennifer Rubin, and consciously so.

The news that Sharpton was an FBI (and, presumably, NYPD) informant came and went (quickly) a few years ago. They had him by the short hairs. Occam's Razor, the same is likely the case with Duke. Silly me, if you claim want a candidate for president to win you act like you do. Including in his case keeping your yap shut.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

While Mr. Trump’s plans for a locked-down deportation nation are largely a nativist fantasy, immigrant communities in Arizona have lived with the reality of what the Trump vision leads to: the brutal racial profiling and policing abuses of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a staunch Trump ally, who echoes and inspires Mr. Trump’s vicious talk about immigrants as criminals

I had this fever dream where I hallucinated that all of the illegal crystal meth and heroin and cocaine in the U.S. came in from Mexico. In reality we know that they are merely the physical manifestation of white privilege.

Yeah, I’ve also read somewhere about the muyth of Hispanic crime. You can sleep safely, it doesn’t exist.

A while ago in this comment, I more or less asked if, given “the problems and divisions that now plague America”, people thought political solutions were still possible — reading this from the NYT, it is again worth posing the question: how do you imagine finding common ground with these people?

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Note that Tiny Dick is a paid troll who posts this same stuff across multiple sites all day long.

Correct. Tiny Duck also makes troll posts under the names of Sick Duck, Golden Showers and Golden Flowers. The identical juvenile comments expose him easily.
Vox Day at his blog got rid of him in all of his various manifestations. Strange that Steve has not done this yet.

My wife is originally from Russia so I get bombarded with Russian media and I would have to say that most Russkies are quite proud of Putin. He is a very smart and vigorous man. By American standards he is overexposed by a country mile but he is constantly meeting with various mayors, governors, generals, etc. He is always giving awards and meeting with students. Putin is at the inauguration of a bridge, Putin is at the groundbreaking of a new this or that. Like Trump, they guy lives on a plane and he is constantly visiting far flung places inside of Russia and outside to let his constituents know he is doing his job.

Now contrast that with Hillary. She is an old woman that gets easily tired. She limits who she sees to friendly audiences. Everything she does is behind closed doors. Perception matters. Hillary will be a ruler not a leader.

Everyone knows Bill will be running things behind the scenes. People will vote Clinton less because of her character and abilities than out of nostalgia for the 1990s. (Similarly, people voted for Bush Jr. in 2000 because they were nostalgic for the Reagan era, and reckoned the same folks would be running things under Bush.)

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.’”

If NYT editorializes Trump as painting Mexico as a nation of rapists, they can editorialize the academic left as painting European whites as a ethnic group of aging decrepits that must be replaced through mass immigration.

I am thinking of this quote from wing academic superstar Thomas Piketty:

the openness demonstrated by Germany is excellent news for all those who are worried about a decrepit and aging Europe. One can indeed acknowledge that Germany has but little choice in the matter, given its very low birth rate.

Trump is a con man who is deceiving nationalists on immigration. He went on the Laura Ingraham show today after his immigration speech last night and insisted that “there’s really quite a bit of softening” on immigration. He implied that the many millions of non-criminal illegal aliens could stay and get amnesty:

Passing on the chance to disavow the prior “softening” narrative, Trump insisted instead, “Oh, there’s softening. Look, we do it in a very humane way, and we’re going to see with the people that are in the country. Obviously I want to get the gang members out, the drug peddlers out, I want to get the drug dealers out. We’ve got a lot of people in this country that you can’t have, and those people we’ll get out.”

“And then we’re going to make a decision at a later date once everything is stabilized,” Trump continued. “I think you’re going to see there’s really quite a bit of softening.”

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn't back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August). Those joined three or four Trump hit op/eds from the early morning of the 31st. Every single day, the WashPost is pounding on the guy and to no effect. I suppose they keep liberals that were never going to vote any way but the Hillary way warm and fuzzy, but to what end do they do this? No one reads the WashPost that is going to flip. It's my old hometown paper, I know how to beat their paywall, so I read it, but they aren't convincing me of anything except that traffic and Dindu-crime are way up and quality of life is way down in my old hometown. Meanwhile, they don't touch Hillary's health, the FBI/Hillary/Huma email/Foundation situation and they only published one piece on the Pervert Anthony Weiner, chastising us for watching the train crash. Even better, as instructive as what the liberals print about Trump is what they do NOT print on Hillary and there's far more to print on Hillary.

So the NYTimes and WashPost and Chicago Tribune (all of em, really) are losing tens of millions a month and are propped up by Globalist billionaires printing out the DNC/Globalist line for local consumption. Said billionaires are hoping Hillary wins. Suppose she doesn't, do the billionaires let those papers fold for being useless? If no one is reading your billboard and no one is buying and your product fails, do you keep buying/paying the price for that failed media?

They're mere hit-piece generators, Gawkers, so to speak. Fishwrap, failed as commercial entities. When do they die out? Without Bezos, WashPost would have been dead 10 years back.

They are cornered and desperate. They have become delusional and may get more violent. Trump needs to give them an avenue of retreat.

You often cite the speech, remembered now only for Bill Clinton burbling that he could have had Osama bin Ladin assassinated; as perverse coincidence, it was delivered Sept. 10, 2001. But, as you note, Bill Clinton also marveled at wisdom of open borders. We are destined for a borderless world, he said, where people can come and go freely. Of course, as he was speaking, 19 visa pioneers who’d stepped quite freely into this country were planning on rearranging the New York skyline. They hadn’t seen the Coke commercial. They weren’t visiting our fair if somewhat delusional nation to teach us to sing with the world in perfect har mo nee.

A borderless earth is THE goal of our financial elites, since it not only provides them with free-ranging cheap labor and utterly destroys prospects for any collective worker action – like unionizing – it also gives our betters yet another opportunity to rebuke critics for their racism and “isolationism”. Of course, that opens the door for a general castigation of “legacy” Americans for their privilege and racism and hate and reluctance to memorize all the specialized pronouns cooked up for LGBBQ folk. Nothing defines autocracy today more than 1.) – making money, and 2.) catwalking high if dubious moral character for all to see. Denouncing the haters proves you’re not a hater. Denouncing them AND stealing their wallets proves you’re a visionary.

Hillary Clinton is fleshy embodiment of that New World Ordure. Daily Beast implies she agrees with a lot of Trump’s immigration ideas. What? She’s panicked by the poll plunge and is co-opting Trump’s most-popular issue? Only to chuck it all once elected (I’m not THAT sure Trump himself won’t)?

Steve, please tell me you caught Trump’s crude runaround on the eleven million illegals in this speech and thus his leaving the door open for functional amnesty.

In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQsr9196cu0&t=78m48s

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: "Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second". All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

Tiny Duck is actually pretty brilliant satire. The fact that so many people take the bait and freak out at him shows how perfectly he nails the clueless PC triumphalist mindset. The fact that it's hard to tell that he actually agrees with Sailer and isn't just a PC troll shows just how difficult it is to satirize beliefs that are the exact opposite of common sense.

Tiny Duck is actually pretty brilliant satire.

No, no, it’s not. He’s less than mediocre, probably the best an average IQ can do. I’d almost guess it’s written by a woman since it lacks any cleverness but the obsessive posting here every day on nearly every post tells me it’s a man. If you want truly clever satire, check out the Hillary PR Team (@OnMessageForHer), the former Conservative Pundit, parody Twitter account.

Surely the point of owning any media outlet is to influence opinion, policy etc?

But if it can make money or at least break even so much the better. If one owns an outlet thats hemorrhaging money thats probably a sign that its simply not reaching enough eyes/ears anymore. And thus increasingly failing in it's core purpose.

The NYT would like to influence everyone, but will settle for influencing the right people. It may reach too few people to break even and still fulfill its purpose in the eyes of its benefactors.

I just read it to keep up with the dark side and watch the liberal terror and suffering. They're positively marinaded in Trump hit pieces. Back in the 50s and 60s, my Pop used to read it every morning to see what the press knew of the latest shenanigans in Vietnam and of course, the politics of the day. We had the Post, Washington Daily News and the Washington Evening Star hitting the stoop every day. I even delivered it for a year. They're all gone except the Post and it's walking dead. No subscribers, no advertisers. Only Bezos piling in 60 million/month to keep it running. He even bought that loser new offices.

Where do you get the $60 million a month number as losses for the Wapo? Bezos is a rich guy but that is losing almost 3/4 billion dollars a year.

Forbes, Bloomies, CNBC. Cramer has suggested higher losses than that. Are their books even open? It's being propped up, they were bought for next to nothing, ad rates don't exist, their "paywall" on digital content is a mess, no one pays for the digital Post, it's easily broken. Their click-bait generates nothing. I can see how they could lose 60 million/month, easily. Just on their warehouse operation at Robinson Terminal they lose plenty, what a mess THAT is.

A billion ain't what it used to be. And NYTimes, in NYC? Bet they lose even more. That one is propped up by a Mexxie Billionaire, forget his name, don't even care. His message at NYTimes is all, too, just like Bezos. When billionaire insiders were allowed to buy up our media outlets, that was the end.

Voting control is lost in bankruptcy, when creditors takeover. So it helps to know on which side your bread is buttered. Carlos Slim has no need for voting control--he's the assurance the family retains it.

I’m concerned about your mental health. This obsession with Trump and Hillary is not healthy.

Speaking as someone who values your (primarily humorous) contribution to Mr. Sailer's blog, I ask you to please seek professional help.

Find a doctor to prescribe appropriate anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medication as soon as possible. It is critical that you have sufficient levels of both medications already in your bloodstream on election night. And make sure any guns, rope or sharp objects are not readily available to you.

I think Duke is just an attention whore, he knows that if he says good things about Trump the media will lap it up.

I think he is as much a supporter of Hillary as Bill Kristol or Jennifer Rubin, and consciously so.

The news that Sharpton was an FBI (and, presumably, NYPD) informant came and went (quickly) a few years ago. They had him by the short hairs. Occam’s Razor, the same is likely the case with Duke. Silly me, if you claim want a candidate for president to win you act like you do. Including in his case keeping your yap shut.

Only Trump could get away with a speech in which he says “No amnesty, no amnesty, build a wall, no amnesty, no amnesty, follow the laws, no amnesty, no amnesty, maybe amnesty later, no amnesty, no amnesty, America First.” How can any lucid individual listen to his speech and not notice the promise of legalization at a later date for the eleven million illegals?

One question I’d like to have answered: how exactly does Trump plan to build this wall? As leader of the Executive Branch, he’d have a great deal of power. But the power of the purse largely belongs to Congress, and I don’t see them choosing to fund such a project.

He could order the military forces to do certain things, but any long-term solution would require financial support that I don’t expect him to be able to motivate our Glorious Congresscritters to supply.

As I understand it, funding is supposed to be derived from the liquidation of seized cartel assets on both sides of the border, along with some supplemental expenditures from Congress. The political impetus for this item to be greased through the Senate is an alleged last-minute amnesty shift from Trump once in office. That's why he keeps avoiding the issue of nonviolent illegals in all those immigration addresses; keeping amnesty alive in the shadows gives him a post-election legislative carrot/stick other than periodic government shutdowns.

Congress will need to approve it but money is fungible so when he gets Mexico to pay for the wall, he will be winkling it out of an account that is tied to Mexican trade. My solution would be to get Americans to pay for it by allowing them to make tax deductible donations on our income taxes to a fund that would go exclusively towards building a wall. My guess is that if The Donald asked for it, roughly half (the half that supports him) would flood the coffers with more than enough money. The advantages are that it would go a long way to build civic pride, something which is in short supply right now. Like one of those fund raising drives in WW2 where factories or schools would raise money to build a plane or tank. It would also chasten the liberals and hand them a poignant visual and tangible reminder of their humiliating defeat. If the Mexicans pay for it, it will look like we bullied them. $40 from 100 million people would not be that hard to raise. I would be glad to do it.

If the commanders of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy SeaBees can tell which way the wind is blowing, they will already be drafting OPORDS and positioning equipment so they can get started digging on Jan 22. A 10X10- foot ditch backed by a 10X10 earth berm wouldn't even require any materials. Set up active denial systems at selected intervals, and support the whole thing with ICE and Natl. Guard patrols (ground and air), and you've got a perimeter defense using personnel, equipment, and materials that are basically sunk costs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device

Alternatively, The Don could go the route of making The Wall a giant public works project, "Putting America Back to Work". Blue-collar workers employed. Local economies stimulated. Etc, etc. It's almost like it's one of those "shovel-ready" jobs that Dear Leader was touting back in 2009.

One question I'd like to have answered: how exactly does Trump plan to build this wall? As leader of the Executive Branch, he'd have a great deal of power. But the power of the purse largely belongs to Congress, and I don't see them choosing to fund such a project.

He could order the military forces to do certain things, but any long-term solution would require financial support that I don't expect him to be able to motivate our Glorious Congresscritters to supply.

One step at a time.

Let’s get Trump elected, then if Congress is a problem, use the ballot box to selectively get rid of the problem.

Trump is a con man who is deceiving nationalists on immigration. He went on the Laura Ingraham show today after his immigration speech last night and insisted that "there's really quite a bit of softening" on immigration. He implied that the many millions of non-criminal illegal aliens could stay and get amnesty:

Passing on the chance to disavow the prior “softening” narrative, Trump insisted instead, "Oh, there’s softening. Look, we do it in a very humane way, and we’re going to see with the people that are in the country. Obviously I want to get the gang members out, the drug peddlers out, I want to get the drug dealers out. We’ve got a lot of people in this country that you can’t have, and those people we’ll get out."

"And then we’re going to make a decision at a later date once everything is stabilized," Trump continued. "I think you’re going to see there’s really quite a bit of softening."

Trump continues to promise amnesty for the eleven million nonviolent illegals at a later date:

“You’re going to be asked this, so I might as well ask it,” Ingraham said to Trump during a radio interview. “The line last week [was] you were softening on immigration, then you come out with a very specific, very pro-enforcement plan last night. Where’s the softening?”Passing on the chance to disavow the prior “softening” narrative, Trump insisted instead, "Oh, there’s softening. Look, we do it in a very humane way, and we’re going to see with the people that are in the country. Obviously I want to get the gang members out, the drug peddlers out, I want to get the drug dealers out. We’ve got a lot of people in this country that you can’t have, and those people we’ll get out.""And then we’re going to make a decision at a later date once everything is stabilized," Trump continued. "I think you’re going to see there’s really quite a bit of softening."

The most surprising thing to me was the comments on that NYT editorial - there are way fewer pro-Trump comments than you would have seen six months ago. Also, earlier in the year the anti-Trump "NYT Picks" were always completely different from the typically pro-Trump "Reader Picks". Now, all the picks are anti-Trump.

One pro-Trump comment that "there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US - that's 3% of the population" attracted a dozen virulent anti-Trump replies. They're just piling on now.

This is an interesting observation. Probably telling. This was a good speech but Trump squandered too much in the last few months. He’s lost a lot of support maybe. An alternative explanation is that the NYT is so biased they’ve lost readers.

One question I'd like to have answered: how exactly does Trump plan to build this wall? As leader of the Executive Branch, he'd have a great deal of power. But the power of the purse largely belongs to Congress, and I don't see them choosing to fund such a project.

He could order the military forces to do certain things, but any long-term solution would require financial support that I don't expect him to be able to motivate our Glorious Congresscritters to supply.

As I understand it, funding is supposed to be derived from the liquidation of seized cartel assets on both sides of the border, along with some supplemental expenditures from Congress. The political impetus for this item to be greased through the Senate is an alleged last-minute amnesty shift from Trump once in office. That’s why he keeps avoiding the issue of nonviolent illegals in all those immigration addresses; keeping amnesty alive in the shadows gives him a post-election legislative carrot/stick other than periodic government shutdowns.

OT: Another one of my predictions: just like Presidente Nieto has a hunch who is gonna win so he needs to study the chessboard, Kapaernick is inadvertently giving Trump the winning touchdown!

This total narcissist is showing the American people that they are all complicit in “institutional racism” and that they are not worthy of his respect. I predict this is such a yuge mistake since football is the one religion in this country that everyone can get behind. His disrespect for his team, police, armed forces, and American people will further broadcast to the American electorate that Trump is correct in that everyone who is an American citizen has a duty to respect our country. Otherwise, just leave; you don’t deserve to live here.

That a million-dollar player (who’s not that good anymore, btw) of a ball game, has the audacity to think his ramblings about race will resonate with fans (and the millions watching tonight’s game), is delusional and just, well, dumb.

If he is auditioning for a job with ESPN, he’s too much of a liability. The network can not take a risk that their audience is forced to ever listen to this disrespectful loser ever again. You have to have charisma and be likable on camera – and, this guy just doesn’t have any of that…the American football audience don’t like to be told they are racists…and espn needs to quit playing politics, shut their traps on the election, and just talk about the games this season. Enough. I just can’t stand this player; he’s just a jerk in a football jersey he doesn’t deserve to wear anymore.

Well, I say carry-on and diss the people in the stadiums this season, it will turn millions of people to vote for Trump. People are tired of race grandstanding. Football is not the time and place for this. I also predict ESPN will lose more subscriptions…and they can’t afford that anymore. Espn has laid-off about 800 people the last 4 years.

As usual, the NY Times Editorial Board can’t even bring themselves to present the arguments Trump was making in order to rebut them.

They know that the most basic point Trump was making — that the American people rightly have the ultimate say over who can immigrate, and immigration rightly must serve their interests — is too dangerous and simple an idea to be repeated. They know there’s no refutation of that fundamental point that will ever convince anyone not already devoted to the religion of open borders.

One very good thing about the “debates” is that it should at least allow Trump to be heard on these basic issues unfiltered and with full context. God knows how many gotchas are being devised for him, but he will have the real opportunity to get out his true message.

One question I'd like to have answered: how exactly does Trump plan to build this wall? As leader of the Executive Branch, he'd have a great deal of power. But the power of the purse largely belongs to Congress, and I don't see them choosing to fund such a project.

He could order the military forces to do certain things, but any long-term solution would require financial support that I don't expect him to be able to motivate our Glorious Congresscritters to supply.

Congress will need to approve it but money is fungible so when he gets Mexico to pay for the wall, he will be winkling it out of an account that is tied to Mexican trade. My solution would be to get Americans to pay for it by allowing them to make tax deductible donations on our income taxes to a fund that would go exclusively towards building a wall. My guess is that if The Donald asked for it, roughly half (the half that supports him) would flood the coffers with more than enough money. The advantages are that it would go a long way to build civic pride, something which is in short supply right now. Like one of those fund raising drives in WW2 where factories or schools would raise money to build a plane or tank. It would also chasten the liberals and hand them a poignant visual and tangible reminder of their humiliating defeat. If the Mexicans pay for it, it will look like we bullied them. $40 from 100 million people would not be that hard to raise. I would be glad to do it.

Not only has Hillary discussed the Alt-Right in her speech (why would you give them recognition if there no more than a insect?), Steve’s blog has earned his own Hillary Hasbara troll in Tiny Duck. Now that’s success!

well, she needs to start giving speeches and appearances. Her presidential race is turning into the Wizard of Oz. Who/Where is she? No interviews, no appearances. Not going to Mexico (or beating Donald to it) - what good are her billionaire friends it they can't get her on their jet out of Westchester County airport - a really sweet airport, btw??? There is something terribly wrong with her health! Why is Biden "hawking her wares," today?

Like I said, I am now, officially, sadly, dealing with my mother whose memory is starting to erode. Btw, she has a Master's degree; speaks 5 languages, has a very high IQ, is a world-traveler; and has lived an amazing, unusual life, married to her teen-age love (my father)...and widowed youngish. This is why I am suspicious: someone in her fortress will need to cough-it up, or their reputation is on the line in the future.

At least in Finland, President Kekkonen admitted, reluctantly, that he was falling into dementia. He was President for 4 terms (1956-1982)! (6 years each + 2 extensions). There was a power struggle, and Kekkonen who suffered from vascular dementia/atherosclerosis, was ultimately upstaged by Koivisto, the PM, a socialist, ugh.

Sylvi Kekkonen, much like Nancy Reagan, tried to shield her husband's growing dementia from the public...until they ran out of time. - yeah, and Hillary's team saying she is trying to "run out the clock," makes me think of poor Urho & Sylvi circa 1980. Check out Urho K in Wikipedia; he was quite the character.

For a guy of 100% pure Nordic stock; a blond blue-eyed six-footer of Lutheran German and Scots Presbyterian background, Trump must have the greatest chutzpah of all time. The brazen culturally semito-levantine New York style, synthesized with an urgent will to preserve hearth and home for the people, is possibly unique?

I'm fascinated that by the current year, it takes a billionaire playboy bullsh*ter actually to save America and her posterity.

The British Empire was largely built by brazen, loud-mouthed, stingy Scots. As for his German heritage, Germans weren’t exactly famous for being pussies, until they were bombed to submission in WWII.

The funny thing is, in general Germans actually were known for being pussies until 1870. Yes, Prussia had a great military reputation, but the Austrians were poorly led, the Saxons were cowards, the Bavarians were happier singing and drinking beer. Germans were the ethnic group that produced poets and philosophers. If you wanted a military officer you looked for a Frenchman or a Scot. Reputations can change very quickly.

1. A shooting in Avalon Park left 54-year-old David J. Plank dead on Wednesday, officials said. At 2:21 p.m., Plank was driving in the 8400 block of South Stony Island Avenue when he was shot in his side, said Officer Thomas Sweeney, a Chicago Police spokesman. Plank was not thought to be the target of the shooting.

2. John Alexander, 66, died after being stabbed in his Logan Square home Saturday night, police said. At 10:30 p.m., Alexander was in his home in the 2500 block of West Moffat Street when a man walked inside and stabbed him multiple times in his chest before running away, said Officer Bari Lemmon, a Chicago Police spokeswoman. Police said the 66-year-old was a “convicted felon.”

3. 57-year-old woman slain has been identified as Penny Gearhart. This happened in Uptown and was reported in detail.

“With the death toll mounting toward 500 and the city’s violence fast becoming a regular topic of Donald J. Trump’s campaign, many here seemed to be grasping for explanations of August’s particular level of bloodshed and for new solutions.”

After some hand wringing, the Times finally quotes the police superintendent, Eddie Johnson, who noted that:

“85 percent of those involved in the shootings this year had been on a police list of those most likely to commit violence or to be victims of it, based on factors like previous arrests.”

Or, that he was neither surprised nor perplexed at the identity of the victims, who were already on their ‘likely’ list. And follows with:

“The majority of Chicago is fairly safe from this particular problem,” he said. “That 85 percent — they choose that lifestyle. They choose it.”

Chicago has 2.7 million residents. I would love to know the size of Johnson’s list. 27,000? And a percent of those get murdered every year?

As of December 31, 2014, the Illinois prison population was 48,278.

I have a modest proposal. I think that the chief’s list very likely includes a lot of people not on the Illinois Organ Donor List. A massive campaign to sign this group up for organ donation would provide a basis for a conversation. A personal visit and pep talk. Inform the family and offer them a cash bonus per kidney, etc.

Only Trump could get away with a speech in which he says "No amnesty, no amnesty, build a wall, no amnesty, no amnesty, follow the laws, no amnesty, no amnesty, maybe amnesty later, no amnesty, no amnesty, America First." How can any lucid individual listen to his speech and not notice the promise of legalization at a later date for the eleven million illegals?

He definitely acts anal-retentive enough to be that guy, but I suspect Larison feels he's far too good to associate with riff-raff like us. Which is ironic since both he and Steve used to post regularly over at Taki's.

One question I'd like to have answered: how exactly does Trump plan to build this wall? As leader of the Executive Branch, he'd have a great deal of power. But the power of the purse largely belongs to Congress, and I don't see them choosing to fund such a project.

He could order the military forces to do certain things, but any long-term solution would require financial support that I don't expect him to be able to motivate our Glorious Congresscritters to supply.

president trump could immediately finish the rest of this project while he tries to get additional fencing :

It’s ridiculous that Donald Trump’s immigration proposals New York Times’ editorials — not so much a policy as empty words strung together and repeated — should have propelled him them as far as they have. This confounding situation hit peak absurdity on Wednesday Thursday.

It’s ridiculous that Donald Trump’s immigration proposals New York Times’ editorials — not so much a policy as empty words strung together and repeated — should have propelled him them as far as they have. This confounding situation hit peak absurdity on Wednesday Thursday.

Not only has Hillary discussed the Alt-Right in her speech (why would you give them recognition if there no more than a insect?), Steve's blog has earned his own Hillary Hasbara troll in Tiny Duck. Now that's success!

well, she needs to start giving speeches and appearances. Her presidential race is turning into the Wizard of Oz. Who/Where is she? No interviews, no appearances. Not going to Mexico (or beating Donald to it) – what good are her billionaire friends it they can’t get her on their jet out of Westchester County airport – a really sweet airport, btw??? There is something terribly wrong with her health! Why is Biden “hawking her wares,” today?

Like I said, I am now, officially, sadly, dealing with my mother whose memory is starting to erode. Btw, she has a Master’s degree; speaks 5 languages, has a very high IQ, is a world-traveler; and has lived an amazing, unusual life, married to her teen-age love (my father)…and widowed youngish. This is why I am suspicious: someone in her fortress will need to cough-it up, or their reputation is on the line in the future.

At least in Finland, President Kekkonen admitted, reluctantly, that he was falling into dementia. He was President for 4 terms (1956-1982)! (6 years each + 2 extensions). There was a power struggle, and Kekkonen who suffered from vascular dementia/atherosclerosis, was ultimately upstaged by Koivisto, the PM, a socialist, ugh.

Sylvi Kekkonen, much like Nancy Reagan, tried to shield her husband’s growing dementia from the public…until they ran out of time. – yeah, and Hillary’s team saying she is trying to “run out the clock,” makes me think of poor Urho & Sylvi circa 1980. Check out Urho K in Wikipedia; he was quite the character.

Steve, please tell me you caught Trump’s crude runaround on the eleven million illegals in this speech and thus his leaving the door open for functional amnesty.

In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQsr9196cu0&t=78m48s

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: "Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second". All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

I think this is missing the point. The gist, as he puts in his speech, is that if e-verify, no benefits/public services for illegals…In essence following the current existing laws are actually followed and enforced, then no “deportation” is necessary. It will simply happen. I apologize for not having a block quote from the speech, but I am feeling very lazy.

That creative line of thinking simply doesn't add up. If it's the case, why the same verbiage for his reversal on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling? Continually and recurrently Trump declares a brazenly nationalistic immigration policy, including for the above, and then walks it back to an establishment position with a promise of "softening". You can't use cartel assets to pay for The Wall if Mexico doesn't cooperate. You can't get Mexico to cooperate if you castrate NAFTA. You can't castrate NAFTA if you have to get Mexico to cooperate. And you can't get Congress to fund The Wall or federally mandate E-Verify without amnesty in some way, shape, or form. There's no angle from which anyone can defend these clever asides from Trump about "a discussion taking place" on the eleven million "in several years". The more explicit his comments become on The Softening, the more incentive the illegals have to stay behind The Wall until mass legalization comes around.

Congress will need to approve it but money is fungible so when he gets Mexico to pay for the wall, he will be winkling it out of an account that is tied to Mexican trade. My solution would be to get Americans to pay for it by allowing them to make tax deductible donations on our income taxes to a fund that would go exclusively towards building a wall. My guess is that if The Donald asked for it, roughly half (the half that supports him) would flood the coffers with more than enough money. The advantages are that it would go a long way to build civic pride, something which is in short supply right now. Like one of those fund raising drives in WW2 where factories or schools would raise money to build a plane or tank. It would also chasten the liberals and hand them a poignant visual and tangible reminder of their humiliating defeat. If the Mexicans pay for it, it will look like we bullied them. $40 from 100 million people would not be that hard to raise. I would be glad to do it.

C’mon man! BHO just shipped the Iranians $400 million in cash, and then sent then 1.4 Billion in 14 increments just $0.01 under $100 million from a Treasury slush fund. So it can be done.

The 2016 federal budget is 3.8 TRILLION dollars. 38 billion dollars (1%) would pay for a wall and it would be a rounding error.

My point is that is might be very healthy to get citizens involved in a positive way. Donating money is just one part. We could actually have volunteers putting up the fence or supporting it once it has been built. The liberals would bellyache but that is just icing on the cake.

I can’t help envying Ciersei in the last episode of this season’s Game of Thrones, savoring a glass of wine as she looks out her window at the demolition of the Sept. Would that the same would happen to our “Cathedral.”

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn’t back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August).

He’s been living rent-free in Obama’s head for months now. Gives him stuttering fits and everything. Friggin hilarious to watch the envy (of a charismatic politician, instead of a smoke-and-mirrors, roboprompter, media creation).

I don’t think loving white people should be a test of citizenship. Police state mandated love.

Neither do I. Your kind can love us from afar, in the countries your ancestors made for you.

They’re pouty for the same reason children are: they’re weak. Or they’re weaker than they once were. An apostate like Trump should’ve been disposed of ages ago. But we stupid plebs have kept him in it, ignoring our betters. The NYT, or what it represents, is supposed to be stronger than that.

There’s a lot of truth to this. The media figures they should be tilting the playing field against a PC puppet-with-oligarch-hand-up-ass like Romney or McCain, not a GDMF populist reformer like Trump. His nomination is an open wound already, and now Cankles can’t get over 45%? Added insult to injury.

I’m concerned about your mental health.

Don’t waste your concern on the nonexistent.

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: “Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second”. All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

Concern troll is concerned. Grasp those straws, buddy. And some reins. But not “reigns,” my friend, not “reigns.”

What sort of low-grade moron brags about being a Mensa inductee, an organization with lower standards for membership than even the jazz “profession”?

I bet he knows the difference between “reign,” and “rein,” though. So he’s got you whupped.

I bet he knows the difference between “reign,” and “rein,” though. So he’s got you whupped.

Svi,

Someone who has not yet grasped how to use the unz.com "reply" feature should not be tossing rocks from his glass house. Other than you, it is the one issue that SS and all iSteve commenters agree on.

Your kind can love us from afar,

That's witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don't think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

At the moment, I think an anti-Wahhabi and anti-Iranian-Ayatollah test for immigrants would, just barely, survive the current Supreme Court by a 4-4 or 3-5 margin. And this also seems to be Trump's proposal.

It really comes down to whether the justices will be willing to repudiate the 1950's communist ideology tests that were trimmed back a bit but generally allowed. I don't think any of the four Republican justices are willing to do this, and there is some chance Breyer and Kagan would not either, or would support trimming the law around the edges.

The next question is whether Trump can do this by executive action, or would need a law to pass Congress. There is no possible way the Senate, with its deep and abiding affection for Gulf Arabs, would pass such a law. In fact it would get maybe 12 votes.

Opponents of an executive action would adopt the successful court strategy that is blocking, at least for three for four years, Obama's executive amnesty: find a friendly state government plaintiff, district court, and circuit court, win there, and then rely on the Supreme Court not having the votes to even take the case to reverse the preliminary injunction. Resisting this effort will really require someone with the talent of Ted Olson or Miguel Estrada as AG for Trump.

The British Empire was largely built by brazen, loud-mouthed, stingy Scots. As for his German heritage, Germans weren't exactly famous for being pussies, until they were bombed to submission in WWII.

The funny thing is, in general Germans actually were known for being pussies until 1870. Yes, Prussia had a great military reputation, but the Austrians were poorly led, the Saxons were cowards, the Bavarians were happier singing and drinking beer. Germans were the ethnic group that produced poets and philosophers. If you wanted a military officer you looked for a Frenchman or a Scot. Reputations can change very quickly.

Even Prussia was poorly regarded as a military power in that era. It wasn't just considered inferior to France, but to Austria. Everyone expected the Austrians to win the 1866 war, including the French, who were probably planning to intervene to "save" Prussia from Austria the same way they had saved the Italians a few years earlier. The swift defeat of the Austrian armies came as a shock to everybody.

The funny thing is, in general Germans actually were known for being pussies until 1870. Yes, Prussia had a great military reputation, but the Austrians were poorly led, the Saxons were cowards, the Bavarians were happier singing and drinking beer. Germans were the ethnic group that produced poets and philosophers. If you wanted a military officer you looked for a Frenchman or a Scot. Reputations can change very quickly.

Even Prussia was poorly regarded as a military power in that era. It wasn’t just considered inferior to France, but to Austria. Everyone expected the Austrians to win the 1866 war, including the French, who were probably planning to intervene to “save” Prussia from Austria the same way they had saved the Italians a few years earlier. The swift defeat of the Austrian armies came as a shock to everybody.

One question I'd like to have answered: how exactly does Trump plan to build this wall? As leader of the Executive Branch, he'd have a great deal of power. But the power of the purse largely belongs to Congress, and I don't see them choosing to fund such a project.

He could order the military forces to do certain things, but any long-term solution would require financial support that I don't expect him to be able to motivate our Glorious Congresscritters to supply.

Trump will be CINC. When he gives the word, they go.

If the commanders of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy SeaBees can tell which way the wind is blowing, they will already be drafting OPORDS and positioning equipment so they can get started digging on Jan 22. A 10X10- foot ditch backed by a 10X10 earth berm wouldn’t even require any materials. Set up active denial systems at selected intervals, and support the whole thing with ICE and Natl. Guard patrols (ground and air), and you’ve got a perimeter defense using personnel, equipment, and materials that are basically sunk costs.

Alternatively, The Don could go the route of making The Wall a giant public works project, “Putting America Back to Work”. Blue-collar workers employed. Local economies stimulated. Etc, etc. It’s almost like it’s one of those “shovel-ready” jobs that Dear Leader was touting back in 2009.

Where do you get the $60 million a month number as losses for the Wapo? Bezos is a rich guy but that is losing almost 3/4 billion dollars a year.

Forbes, Bloomies, CNBC. Cramer has suggested higher losses than that. Are their books even open? It’s being propped up, they were bought for next to nothing, ad rates don’t exist, their “paywall” on digital content is a mess, no one pays for the digital Post, it’s easily broken. Their click-bait generates nothing. I can see how they could lose 60 million/month, easily. Just on their warehouse operation at Robinson Terminal they lose plenty, what a mess THAT is.

A billion ain’t what it used to be. And NYTimes, in NYC? Bet they lose even more. That one is propped up by a Mexxie Billionaire, forget his name, don’t even care. His message at NYTimes is all, too, just like Bezos. When billionaire insiders were allowed to buy up our media outlets, that was the end.

Tiny Duck is actually pretty brilliant satire. The fact that so many people take the bait and freak out at him shows how perfectly he nails the clueless PC triumphalist mindset. The fact that it's hard to tell that he actually agrees with Sailer and isn't just a PC troll shows just how difficult it is to satirize beliefs that are the exact opposite of common sense.

TD could be Ramzpaul, a minor-league alt-right stand-up comic on Youtube.

The most surprising thing to me was the comments on that NYT editorial - there are way fewer pro-Trump comments than you would have seen six months ago. Also, earlier in the year the anti-Trump "NYT Picks" were always completely different from the typically pro-Trump "Reader Picks". Now, all the picks are anti-Trump.

One pro-Trump comment that "there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US - that's 3% of the population" attracted a dozen virulent anti-Trump replies. They're just piling on now.

Here’s part of one:

Illegal immigration is not our most serious threat. Our country is built upon cultural diversity and a welcoming stance to those who value freedom and rule of law. People like me–of white European descent–have no special claim upon this land. It was never ours and demographic projections indicate it will be less-and-less ours each year. I am more grateful than ever for the presence of all colors and cultures and I am absolutely counting on people of color to again save us from ourselves. We cannot let this hateful, vacuous, dangerous man become president.

Sailer-Man, Trump is in their heads. He wasn’t back from Meh-Hico yet when six new hit pieces hit the WashPost, fresh since noon yesterday (31 August).

He's been living rent-free in Obama's head for months now. Gives him stuttering fits and everything. Friggin hilarious to watch the envy (of a charismatic politician, instead of a smoke-and-mirrors, roboprompter, media creation).

I don’t think loving white people should be a test of citizenship. Police state mandated love.

Neither do I. Your kind can love us from afar, in the countries your ancestors made for you.

They’re pouty for the same reason children are: they’re weak. Or they’re weaker than they once were. An apostate like Trump should’ve been disposed of ages ago. But we stupid plebs have kept him in it, ignoring our betters. The NYT, or what it represents, is supposed to be stronger than that.

There's a lot of truth to this. The media figures they should be tilting the playing field against a PC puppet-with-oligarch-hand-up-ass like Romney or McCain, not a GDMF populist reformer like Trump. His nomination is an open wound already, and now Cankles can't get over 45%? Added insult to injury.

I’m concerned about your mental health.

Don't waste your concern on the nonexistent.

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: “Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second”. All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

Concern troll is concerned. Grasp those straws, buddy. And some reins. But not "reigns," my friend, not "reigns."

What sort of low-grade moron brags about being a Mensa inductee, an organization with lower standards for membership than even the jazz “profession”?

I bet he knows the difference between "reign," and "rein," though. So he's got you whupped.

I bet he knows the difference between “reign,” and “rein,” though. So he’s got you whupped.

Svi,

Someone who has not yet grasped how to use the unz.com “reply” feature should not be tossing rocks from his glass house. Other than you, it is the one issue that SS and all iSteve commenters agree on.

Your kind can love us from afar,

That’s witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don’t think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

At the moment, I think an anti-Wahhabi and anti-Iranian-Ayatollah test for immigrants would, just barely, survive the current Supreme Court by a 4-4 or 3-5 margin. And this also seems to be Trump’s proposal.

It really comes down to whether the justices will be willing to repudiate the 1950’s communist ideology tests that were trimmed back a bit but generally allowed. I don’t think any of the four Republican justices are willing to do this, and there is some chance Breyer and Kagan would not either, or would support trimming the law around the edges.

The next question is whether Trump can do this by executive action, or would need a law to pass Congress. There is no possible way the Senate, with its deep and abiding affection for Gulf Arabs, would pass such a law. In fact it would get maybe 12 votes.

Opponents of an executive action would adopt the successful court strategy that is blocking, at least for three for four years, Obama’s executive amnesty: find a friendly state government plaintiff, district court, and circuit court, win there, and then rely on the Supreme Court not having the votes to even take the case to reverse the preliminary injunction. Resisting this effort will really require someone with the talent of Ted Olson or Miguel Estrada as AG for Trump.

That’s witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don’t think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

One advantage of having an ideology test for immigrants is that if they fail we can revoke their citizenship for fraud or breach of contract. They can say whatever they want under their first amendment rights but that does not mean they get to keep their citizenship.

That’s witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don’t think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

In fact, federal law allows the President, by decree, to ban from entering the United States any group of persons whom he considers a danger to national security. There is no other restriction on the criteria to be used. This particular section of the USC was upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1950s.

Ann Coulter -- a lawyer by training -- has a column addressing this exact issue with quoted cites from the law and a description of the Supreme Court decision. I'm sure you can find it in an archive of her articles on VDare.Com.

Currently -- and we should all pray that the situation does not change -- non-citizens do not have all the rights of citizens and non-residents do not have all the rights of residents. These facts seem axiomatic to me but some people still seem to have trouble dealing with them.

Why would ideological tests be okay but not religious tests? Because "freedom of religion?" Well, no one's infringing on their right to freely practice their religion if they're not here. Go ahead, practice your religion in Syria, or wherever. No one's stopping you.

So many laws have been layered over still more laws, intended to illuminate or obfuscate I have no idea, that I'm sure something can be dragged out of dusty old tome, polished to a high sheen, and made the law of the land to wide acclimation.

For a guy of 100% pure Nordic stock; a blond blue-eyed six-footer of Lutheran German and Scots Presbyterian background, Trump must have the greatest chutzpah of all time. The brazen culturally semito-levantine New York style, synthesized with an urgent will to preserve hearth and home for the people, is possibly unique?

I'm fascinated that by the current year, it takes a billionaire playboy bullsh*ter actually to save America and her posterity.

I’m fascinated that by the current year, it takes a billionaire playboy bullsh*ter actually to save America and her posterity.

Millionaire playboy bullshitters who had hid doubters have been known to pull their shit together surprisingly well, when duty called. I suggest you rent “Henry V”:

Tiny Duck is actually pretty brilliant satire. The fact that so many people take the bait and freak out at him shows how perfectly he nails the clueless PC triumphalist mindset. The fact that it's hard to tell that he actually agrees with Sailer and isn't just a PC troll shows just how difficult it is to satirize beliefs that are the exact opposite of common sense.

This is a matter of Trump being so behind in the polls that he may as well grasp at straws like these. At the very least he can say that Hillary didn't even bother. That said, the whole thing is patently ridiculous.

I've noticed that all non alt right people agree the whole thing is stupid and Trump is an idiot.

I feel sorry for you guys. You guys actually think Drumpf can win. What planet do you live on?

Does the organization you work for actually think trolling Steve Sailer’s blog will be effective in getting his readers to stay home or vote for Hillary on Election Day? You are the Tokyo Rose of ISteve. They must pay you more than Ramen Noodles, Subway foot-longs, and a bottomless pot of Hills Bros. (Donut Shop).

He definitely acts anal-retentive enough to be that guy, but I suspect Larison feels he’s far too good to associate with riff-raff like us. Which is ironic since both he and Steve used to post regularly over at Taki’s.

Forbes, Bloomies, CNBC. Cramer has suggested higher losses than that. Are their books even open? It's being propped up, they were bought for next to nothing, ad rates don't exist, their "paywall" on digital content is a mess, no one pays for the digital Post, it's easily broken. Their click-bait generates nothing. I can see how they could lose 60 million/month, easily. Just on their warehouse operation at Robinson Terminal they lose plenty, what a mess THAT is.

A billion ain't what it used to be. And NYTimes, in NYC? Bet they lose even more. That one is propped up by a Mexxie Billionaire, forget his name, don't even care. His message at NYTimes is all, too, just like Bezos. When billionaire insiders were allowed to buy up our media outlets, that was the end.

“Cramer has suggested higher losses than that”. I’d forgotten about him. A site called iTulip used to get on him pretty good until he threatened to sue them.

Note that Tiny Dick is a paid troll who posts this same stuff across multiple sites all day long.

Correct. Tiny Duck also makes troll posts under the names of Sick Duck, Golden Showers and Golden Flowers. The identical juvenile comments expose him easily.
Vox Day at his blog got rid of him in all of his various manifestations. Strange that Steve has not done this yet.

Steve, please tell me you caught Trump’s crude runaround on the eleven million illegals in this speech and thus his leaving the door open for functional amnesty.

In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQsr9196cu0&t=78m48s

That sounds like the usual double-speak for amnesty: "Borders first, Pseudo-Legalization second". All this speech tells illegals is that they have to wait a bit longer before a Trump administration will officially announce some revised version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, legalization and all.

As Trump gains ascendence over the Hildebeast I’ve been noticing more false flag operations like this post. The general form is always the same. The poster’s pretense is a desire for border control and real immigration and naturalization reform. They then go on to suggest against all available evidence that Trump secretly does not care about these things or even opposes them. The ulterior message is, “Don’t vote for Trump”. But this really reduces to the more fundamental message: “Do not oppose the elites. Do your bit to make Hillary Rodham Clinton our next President.”

This seems to be a new tactic devised by our elites, who are gradually becoming aware that the meretricious mendacity of the MSM is not sufficient to win this election. They are now trying to undermine support for Trump in more deviously underhanded ways.

For those who have been suborned by this propaganda, I can only suggest that they read Trump’s most recent major speech on border control, immigration, and naturalization; compare it with all his past opinions on these issues; and realize that he is truly their best choice for President. If this is not sufficient, read the Hildabeast’s opinions and consider the horrors that would follow if she were to gain the White House.

Everyone knows Bill will be running things behind the scenes. People will vote Clinton less because of her character and abilities than out of nostalgia for the 1990s. (Similarly, people voted for Bush Jr. in 2000 because they were nostalgic for the Reagan era, and reckoned the same folks would be running things under Bush.)

Everyone knows Bill will be running things behind the scenes.

Right, but not while the Energizer Bunny is not there to top him up.

With The Clinton’s we have the first opportunity for a state funeral for two former presidents at the same time and same place, not to mention the co-location of the Presidential libraries.

I bet he knows the difference between “reign,” and “rein,” though. So he’s got you whupped.

Svi,

Someone who has not yet grasped how to use the unz.com "reply" feature should not be tossing rocks from his glass house. Other than you, it is the one issue that SS and all iSteve commenters agree on.

Your kind can love us from afar,

That's witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don't think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

At the moment, I think an anti-Wahhabi and anti-Iranian-Ayatollah test for immigrants would, just barely, survive the current Supreme Court by a 4-4 or 3-5 margin. And this also seems to be Trump's proposal.

It really comes down to whether the justices will be willing to repudiate the 1950's communist ideology tests that were trimmed back a bit but generally allowed. I don't think any of the four Republican justices are willing to do this, and there is some chance Breyer and Kagan would not either, or would support trimming the law around the edges.

The next question is whether Trump can do this by executive action, or would need a law to pass Congress. There is no possible way the Senate, with its deep and abiding affection for Gulf Arabs, would pass such a law. In fact it would get maybe 12 votes.

Opponents of an executive action would adopt the successful court strategy that is blocking, at least for three for four years, Obama's executive amnesty: find a friendly state government plaintiff, district court, and circuit court, win there, and then rely on the Supreme Court not having the votes to even take the case to reverse the preliminary injunction. Resisting this effort will really require someone with the talent of Ted Olson or Miguel Estrada as AG for Trump.

That’s witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don’t think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

One advantage of having an ideology test for immigrants is that if they fail we can revoke their citizenship for fraud or breach of contract. They can say whatever they want under their first amendment rights but that does not mean they get to keep their citizenship.

Yes, there was an awesome case where a palestinian left a bomb that killed several Israelis at a grocery store, was let out of jail after a few years in a prisoner exchange, bragged about her bombing in a documentary, then immigrated to the USA to become a citizen, lying repeatedly when asked about criminal history.

She was then charged years later with immigration fraud and refused a plea deal that would see her deported and lose citizenship, but no jail time. So a Detroit-area jury convicted her and sent her murderous butt back to an American prison for a few years, and then she will be deported without citizenship.

A shadowy Anglo-Boer generic pharmaceutical billionaire who lavishly funds anti-white causes is paying for an expensive defense and just got her conviction vacated and possibly a new trial.

I think this is missing the point. The gist, as he puts in his speech, is that if e-verify, no benefits/public services for illegals…In essence following the current existing laws are actually followed and enforced, then no “deportation” is necessary. It will simply happen. I apologize for not having a block quote from the speech, but I am feeling very lazy.

Anyone left over may just be worth keeping.

Isn’t that the point?

That creative line of thinking simply doesn’t add up. If it’s the case, why the same verbiage for his reversal on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling? Continually and recurrently Trump declares a brazenly nationalistic immigration policy, including for the above, and then walks it back to an establishment position with a promise of “softening”. You can’t use cartel assets to pay for The Wall if Mexico doesn’t cooperate. You can’t get Mexico to cooperate if you castrate NAFTA. You can’t castrate NAFTA if you have to get Mexico to cooperate. And you can’t get Congress to fund The Wall or federally mandate E-Verify without amnesty in some way, shape, or form. There’s no angle from which anyone can defend these clever asides from Trump about “a discussion taking place” on the eleven million “in several years”. The more explicit his comments become on The Softening, the more incentive the illegals have to stay behind The Wall until mass legalization comes around.

Illegal immigration is not our most serious threat. Our country is built upon cultural diversity and a welcoming stance to those who value freedom and rule of law. People like me--of white European descent--have no special claim upon this land. It was never ours and demographic projections indicate it will be less-and-less ours each year. I am more grateful than ever for the presence of all colors and cultures and I am absolutely counting on people of color to again save us from ourselves. We cannot let this hateful, vacuous, dangerous man become president.

Wow, just wow.

This is the result of K-12 public schooling and an expensive four year college. The most striking thing to me is the passive stance of the writer.

I’m hoping that the writer is female; I don’t want to think that a male could write this. She has drowned herself in a vat of treacley ethnomasochism whipped up by Democrats.

Really a remarkable display of hate-fueled political theater. I'm not so sure that Trump, himself, hates--I don't think he has durable views on much of anything except his own wonderfulness. The speech, though, was crafted to whip up the hateful alt-right/white nationalist crowd. I thought Trump's initial delivery--so tethered to the teleprompter he once mocked--sounded like a stiff 6th grader reading a term paper someone else had written (Bannon? --there was a lot of Breitbart in there). But before long, he was again looking and sounding like a demagogue from a 1930's Nazi Riefenstahl film. Surreal. Beyond creepy.

They say sunshine is the best disinfectant and fact-checkers are already cleaning up by shedding light on the stream of misinformation and fabrication we heard tonight. They'll set the record straight, but it won't matter to the folks in Phoenix or others who share their un-American sentiments.

I bet he knows the difference between “reign,” and “rein,” though. So he’s got you whupped.

Svi,

Someone who has not yet grasped how to use the unz.com "reply" feature should not be tossing rocks from his glass house. Other than you, it is the one issue that SS and all iSteve commenters agree on.

Your kind can love us from afar,

That's witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don't think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

At the moment, I think an anti-Wahhabi and anti-Iranian-Ayatollah test for immigrants would, just barely, survive the current Supreme Court by a 4-4 or 3-5 margin. And this also seems to be Trump's proposal.

It really comes down to whether the justices will be willing to repudiate the 1950's communist ideology tests that were trimmed back a bit but generally allowed. I don't think any of the four Republican justices are willing to do this, and there is some chance Breyer and Kagan would not either, or would support trimming the law around the edges.

The next question is whether Trump can do this by executive action, or would need a law to pass Congress. There is no possible way the Senate, with its deep and abiding affection for Gulf Arabs, would pass such a law. In fact it would get maybe 12 votes.

Opponents of an executive action would adopt the successful court strategy that is blocking, at least for three for four years, Obama's executive amnesty: find a friendly state government plaintiff, district court, and circuit court, win there, and then rely on the Supreme Court not having the votes to even take the case to reverse the preliminary injunction. Resisting this effort will really require someone with the talent of Ted Olson or Miguel Estrada as AG for Trump.

That’s witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don’t think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

In fact, federal law allows the President, by decree, to ban from entering the United States any group of persons whom he considers a danger to national security. There is no other restriction on the criteria to be used. This particular section of the USC was upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1950s.

Ann Coulter — a lawyer by training — has a column addressing this exact issue with quoted cites from the law and a description of the Supreme Court decision. I’m sure you can find it in an archive of her articles on VDare.Com.

Currently — and we should all pray that the situation does not change — non-citizens do not have all the rights of citizens and non-residents do not have all the rights of residents. These facts seem axiomatic to me but some people still seem to have trouble dealing with them.

I think the issue with a "No Muslims" policy is not that it violates the rights of foreigners, but the Establishment Clause.

I also do not like the idea of alienating the 500 million or so Indian, Begali, Indonesian, and Malay Muslims when our real problem is with Arab and African Muslims, and mass third world migration of any sort. Sometime like 10,000 Muslims doctors and programmers from India and Indonesia is a tiny drop in the bucket and good international relations. No extreme Muslims at all, no immigration from "problem areas" of the MENA countries, and tight screening and limited numbers of third world immigrants gives us 95% of what we want from a pure Muslim ban while being much less provocative toward non-radical muslims.

The NY Times is still fully under the control of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, who appoint 70% of the Board of Directors and whose scion is chairman of the board.

Voting control is lost in bankruptcy, when creditors takeover. So it helps to know on which side your bread is buttered. Carlos Slim has no need for voting control–he’s the assurance the family retains it.

C'mon man! BHO just shipped the Iranians $400 million in cash, and then sent then 1.4 Billion in 14 increments just $0.01 under $100 million from a Treasury slush fund. So it can be done.

The 2016 federal budget is 3.8 TRILLION dollars. 38 billion dollars (1%) would pay for a wall and it would be a rounding error.

My point is that is might be very healthy to get citizens involved in a positive way. Donating money is just one part. We could actually have volunteers putting up the fence or supporting it once it has been built. The liberals would bellyache but that is just icing on the cake.

If you are deleting cookies from your browser to get around stuff, you might want to try a private browsing window in Firefox. Might save you the hassle (I suppose it depends on the nature of the cookie; if it’s something that is automatically created, and not some kind of log-in, you’re probably good to go).

Svi,

Someone who has not yet grasped how to use the unz.com “reply” feature should not be tossing rocks from his glass house. Other than you, it is the one issue that SS and all iSteve commenters agree on.

Talk to that someone, then. I know how to use it. But it relies on JavaScript, which I keep turned off.

Opponents of an executive action would adopt the successful court strategy that is blocking, at least for three for four years, Obama’s executive amnesty: find a friendly state government plaintiff, district court, and circuit court, win there, and then rely on the Supreme Court not having the votes to even take the case to reverse the preliminary injunction. Resisting this effort will really require someone with the talent of Ted Olson or Miguel Estrada as AG for Trump.

I sometimes wonder why State legislatures don’t add a word or two to laws struck down by federal courts, pass them, and go on about their business. Feds might not be able to keep up, given how long stuff takes to wend its way through.

He definitely acts anal-retentive enough to be that guy, but I suspect Larison feels he's far too good to associate with riff-raff like us. Which is ironic since both he and Steve used to post regularly over at Taki's.

“both he and Steve used to post regularly over at Taki’s.”

…not to mention TAC.

Come to think of it, he was, briefly, a co-blogger of mine at What’sWrongWithTheWorld, way back when.

This is the result of K-12 public schooling and an expensive four year college. The most striking thing to me is the passive stance of the writer.

I'm hoping that the writer is female; I don't want to think that a male could write this. She has drowned herself in a vat of treacley ethnomasochism whipped up by Democrats.

“chicagobluesman”…

Here’s the rest:

Really a remarkable display of hate-fueled political theater. I’m not so sure that Trump, himself, hates–I don’t think he has durable views on much of anything except his own wonderfulness. The speech, though, was crafted to whip up the hateful alt-right/white nationalist crowd. I thought Trump’s initial delivery–so tethered to the teleprompter he once mocked–sounded like a stiff 6th grader reading a term paper someone else had written (Bannon? –there was a lot of Breitbart in there). But before long, he was again looking and sounding like a demagogue from a 1930’s Nazi Riefenstahl film. Surreal. Beyond creepy.

They say sunshine is the best disinfectant and fact-checkers are already cleaning up by shedding light on the stream of misinformation and fabrication we heard tonight. They’ll set the record straight, but it won’t matter to the folks in Phoenix or others who share their un-American sentiments.

That’s witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don’t think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

In fact, federal law allows the President, by decree, to ban from entering the United States any group of persons whom he considers a danger to national security. There is no other restriction on the criteria to be used. This particular section of the USC was upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1950s.

Ann Coulter -- a lawyer by training -- has a column addressing this exact issue with quoted cites from the law and a description of the Supreme Court decision. I'm sure you can find it in an archive of her articles on VDare.Com.

Currently -- and we should all pray that the situation does not change -- non-citizens do not have all the rights of citizens and non-residents do not have all the rights of residents. These facts seem axiomatic to me but some people still seem to have trouble dealing with them.

I could not find Ann’s article on the topic, but here is Eric Posner saying it would be constitutional:

I think the issue with a “No Muslims” policy is not that it violates the rights of foreigners, but the Establishment Clause.

I also do not like the idea of alienating the 500 million or so Indian, Begali, Indonesian, and Malay Muslims when our real problem is with Arab and African Muslims, and mass third world migration of any sort. Sometime like 10,000 Muslims doctors and programmers from India and Indonesia is a tiny drop in the bucket and good international relations. No extreme Muslims at all, no immigration from “problem areas” of the MENA countries, and tight screening and limited numbers of third world immigrants gives us 95% of what we want from a pure Muslim ban while being much less provocative toward non-radical muslims.

That’s witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don’t think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

One advantage of having an ideology test for immigrants is that if they fail we can revoke their citizenship for fraud or breach of contract. They can say whatever they want under their first amendment rights but that does not mean they get to keep their citizenship.

Yes, there was an awesome case where a palestinian left a bomb that killed several Israelis at a grocery store, was let out of jail after a few years in a prisoner exchange, bragged about her bombing in a documentary, then immigrated to the USA to become a citizen, lying repeatedly when asked about criminal history.

She was then charged years later with immigration fraud and refused a plea deal that would see her deported and lose citizenship, but no jail time. So a Detroit-area jury convicted her and sent her murderous butt back to an American prison for a few years, and then she will be deported without citizenship.

A shadowy Anglo-Boer generic pharmaceutical billionaire who lavishly funds anti-white causes is paying for an expensive defense and just got her conviction vacated and possibly a new trial.

Illegal immigration is not our most serious threat. Our country is built upon cultural diversity and a welcoming stance to those who value freedom and rule of law. People like me--of white European descent--have no special claim upon this land. It was never ours and demographic projections indicate it will be less-and-less ours each year. I am more grateful than ever for the presence of all colors and cultures and I am absolutely counting on people of color to again save us from ourselves. We cannot let this hateful, vacuous, dangerous man become president.

Wow, just wow.

“Our country is built upon cultural diversity and a welcoming stance to those who value freedom and rule of law.”

I dream of a day when this country is filled with lovers of law and order who have illegally snuck across our border.

Correct. Tiny Duck also makes troll posts under the names of Sick Duck, Golden Showers and Golden Flowers. The identical juvenile comments expose him easily.
Vox Day at his blog got rid of him in all of his various manifestations. Strange that Steve has not done this yet.

I can't help envying Ciersei in the last episode of this season's Game of Thrones, savoring a glass of wine as she looks out her window at the demolition of the Sept. Would that the same would happen to our "Cathedral."

I bet he knows the difference between “reign,” and “rein,” though. So he’s got you whupped.

Svi,

Someone who has not yet grasped how to use the unz.com "reply" feature should not be tossing rocks from his glass house. Other than you, it is the one issue that SS and all iSteve commenters agree on.

Your kind can love us from afar,

That's witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don't think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

At the moment, I think an anti-Wahhabi and anti-Iranian-Ayatollah test for immigrants would, just barely, survive the current Supreme Court by a 4-4 or 3-5 margin. And this also seems to be Trump's proposal.

It really comes down to whether the justices will be willing to repudiate the 1950's communist ideology tests that were trimmed back a bit but generally allowed. I don't think any of the four Republican justices are willing to do this, and there is some chance Breyer and Kagan would not either, or would support trimming the law around the edges.

The next question is whether Trump can do this by executive action, or would need a law to pass Congress. There is no possible way the Senate, with its deep and abiding affection for Gulf Arabs, would pass such a law. In fact it would get maybe 12 votes.

Opponents of an executive action would adopt the successful court strategy that is blocking, at least for three for four years, Obama's executive amnesty: find a friendly state government plaintiff, district court, and circuit court, win there, and then rely on the Supreme Court not having the votes to even take the case to reverse the preliminary injunction. Resisting this effort will really require someone with the talent of Ted Olson or Miguel Estrada as AG for Trump.

Why would ideological tests be okay but not religious tests? Because “freedom of religion?” Well, no one’s infringing on their right to freely practice their religion if they’re not here. Go ahead, practice your religion in Syria, or wherever. No one’s stopping you.

I think the issue with a "No Muslims" policy is not that it violates the rights of foreigners, but the Establishment Clause.

I also do not like the idea of alienating the 500 million or so Indian, Begali, Indonesian, and Malay Muslims when our real problem is with Arab and African Muslims, and mass third world migration of any sort. Sometime like 10,000 Muslims doctors and programmers from India and Indonesia is a tiny drop in the bucket and good international relations. No extreme Muslims at all, no immigration from "problem areas" of the MENA countries, and tight screening and limited numbers of third world immigrants gives us 95% of what we want from a pure Muslim ban while being much less provocative toward non-radical muslims.

“…Somet[hing] like 10,000 Muslims doctors and programmers from India and Indonesia is a tiny drop in the bucket and good international relations…”

…Except that they’ll vote overwhelmingly left and relentlessly promote multiculturalism.

When they move from India and Indonesia to the U.S., doesn’t that move the politics of all three countries in the wrong direction?

The NYT Editorial board tears provides great fun, but I'm hoping for a full breakdown if Trump wins. Can you imagine the news coverage the next day? Calls for a recount, revolution, moving to Canada.... all of my dreams would come true.

A friend and I are already designing phony airline vouchers for international flights to give to the local moonbats the day after the election. The smooth, refreshing taste of schadenfreude will be more satisfying than a tropical weekend with a deaf-mute Sports Illustrated swimsuit model!

I'm a DC area guy (whose first job was delivering the WashPo starting in 9th grade) so read the WashPo sports page online. I'm a straight ticket DC sports fan: Skins, Nats, Caps, Wiz/Bullets and they have great coverage.

The Post tries to limit the number of articles you can read, but all you have to do to get around that is delete their cookies from your browser whenever you get the popup "this is your last free article, but you can subscribe and get unlimited blah blah".

I get emails from them periodically asking me to subscribe. A friend asked me once why I didn't just pony up whatever the subscription costs rather than go to the (minor) hassle of deleting their cookies? I said "if there's a chance that my $79 or whatever keeps them from going out of business and all their miserable left-wing editorial board from losing their jobs for even an extra 5 seconds...I can't take that risk"

Use Google Chrome Incognito mode. As long as you don’t mind dealing with evil Google, you can read everything as often as you want.

I bet he knows the difference between “reign,” and “rein,” though. So he’s got you whupped.

Svi,

Someone who has not yet grasped how to use the unz.com "reply" feature should not be tossing rocks from his glass house. Other than you, it is the one issue that SS and all iSteve commenters agree on.

Your kind can love us from afar,

That's witty, and brings up some interesting questions about having ideology tests for immigrants, because I don't think a ban on adherents of a religion would comport with the First Amendment.

At the moment, I think an anti-Wahhabi and anti-Iranian-Ayatollah test for immigrants would, just barely, survive the current Supreme Court by a 4-4 or 3-5 margin. And this also seems to be Trump's proposal.

It really comes down to whether the justices will be willing to repudiate the 1950's communist ideology tests that were trimmed back a bit but generally allowed. I don't think any of the four Republican justices are willing to do this, and there is some chance Breyer and Kagan would not either, or would support trimming the law around the edges.

The next question is whether Trump can do this by executive action, or would need a law to pass Congress. There is no possible way the Senate, with its deep and abiding affection for Gulf Arabs, would pass such a law. In fact it would get maybe 12 votes.

Opponents of an executive action would adopt the successful court strategy that is blocking, at least for three for four years, Obama's executive amnesty: find a friendly state government plaintiff, district court, and circuit court, win there, and then rely on the Supreme Court not having the votes to even take the case to reverse the preliminary injunction. Resisting this effort will really require someone with the talent of Ted Olson or Miguel Estrada as AG for Trump.

So many laws have been layered over still more laws, intended to illuminate or obfuscate I have no idea, that I’m sure something can be dragged out of dusty old tome, polished to a high sheen, and made the law of the land to wide acclimation.

So many laws have been layered over still more laws, intended to illuminate or obfuscate I have no idea, that I'm sure something can be dragged out of dusty old tome, polished to a high sheen, and made the law of the land to wide acclimation.

Well, he does illuminate how a parasitical group that refuses to assimilate might manipulate the host’s laws and procedures.

From that perspective, it does allow one to contemplate a Constitution V2.0.

I'm a DC area guy (whose first job was delivering the WashPo starting in 9th grade) so read the WashPo sports page online. I'm a straight ticket DC sports fan: Skins, Nats, Caps, Wiz/Bullets and they have great coverage.

The Post tries to limit the number of articles you can read, but all you have to do to get around that is delete their cookies from your browser whenever you get the popup "this is your last free article, but you can subscribe and get unlimited blah blah".

I get emails from them periodically asking me to subscribe. A friend asked me once why I didn't just pony up whatever the subscription costs rather than go to the (minor) hassle of deleting their cookies? I said "if there's a chance that my $79 or whatever keeps them from going out of business and all their miserable left-wing editorial board from losing their jobs for even an extra 5 seconds...I can't take that risk"